Estimating the Prevalence of Dementia in Elderly People: A Comparison of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging and National Population Health Survey Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA) and the National Population Health Survey (NPHS) collected data on the prevalence of dementia in differing fashions. The CSHA used a two-stage method with objective testing and expert judgment, and the NPHS used self-report and proxy data. The present report compares estimates of prevalence and the methodology for ascertainment in the two surveys. The more detailed approach of the CSHA offers the more valid means of estimating prevalence and providing data on subtypes, and can be used in naturalhistory studies. TheNPHSmeasures, including a self/proxy report of diagnosed dementia and a derived cognitive measure, are not sufficiently valid for useful inferences to be made. However, the NPHS method can be improved through supplementation with data on functional disability, providing age group-specific point estimates closer to the CSHA's estimates of cognitive impairment and dementia from the community sample. Future waves of the NPHS may wish to include objective cognitive function measures as a cost-efficient and more accurate method of estimating the prevalence of the dementia syndrome without attempting to estimate the prevalence of particular causes of that syndrome.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".