MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145758606 · doi:10.12927/hcq..18220

CIHR Research: Tea Leaves Alzheimer's Disease Behind

2006· article· en· W2145758606 on OpenAlexaff
Rémi Quirion

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTea Polyphenols and Effects
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and AddictionCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBest practiceDiseaseMedicinePolitical sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e've all heard stories about tea leaves having the power to forecast the future.But what if tea could actually help you remember the past?Alzheimer's disease (AD) is an incurable form of progressive dementia that claims people's abilities to remember family, friends -and the past.Currently, in Canada, more than a quarter million Canadians (280,000 people) are losing their memories to AD.By 2031, more than 750,000 Canadians are expected to have the disease and related dementias.And it doesn't stop there.AD also has a profound impact on Canada's economy, with caring costs alone accounting for $5.5 billion each year (Ostbye and Crosse 1994).For the past few years, a number of researchers have conducted studies on tea leaves to prove that they can protect the brain's neurons against AD's toxic compounds.Some have found encouraging results -especially with green tea.With the help of Dr. Stéphane Bastianetto at Montreal's Douglas Hospital Research Centre, I undertook a study that proves for the first time that regular consumption of both green and black teas can prevent neuron cell death or delay the onset of AD.If you have any questions regarding research discussed in this article, please feel free to contact Dr.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicTea Polyphenols and EffectsFrench-language works237,207