Cognitive Impairment, No Dementia: Concepts and Issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reviews the concept of mild cognitive impairment in groups of people whose cognitive impairment does not warrant a diagnosis of dementia (cognitive impairment, no dementia; CIND). Problems with the application of existing sets of criteria to the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA) data sets are addressed and a procedure for identifying a subgroup presumed "at risk" for developing dementia is presented. Application of an informant's report of changes in cognitive functioning and neuropsychologists' ratings of mild to severe deficits in any of eight cognitive domains results in approximately half of the CIND cases being identified as "at risk." The rationale for the collection of specific information related to CIND in CSHA-2 is provided. A minority of people identified with CIND at CSHA-2 showed only memory impairment, and most demonstrated cognitive loss over the preceding five-year interval. This article provides a conceptual basis for procedures to identify people with cognitive impairment most likely to decline to dementia.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.093 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".