Vascular cognitive impairment (VCI): Progress towards knowledge and treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Until recently, the study of cognitive impairment as a manifestation of cerebrovascular disease (CVD) has been hampered by the lack of common standards for assessment. The term vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) encompasses all levels of cognitive decline associated with CVD from mild deficits in one or more cognitive domains to crude dementia syndrome. VCI incorporates the complex interactions among classic vascular risk factors (i.e. arterial hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes), CVD subtypes, and Alzheimer's Disease (AD) pathology. VCI may be the earliest, commonest, and subtlest manifestation of CVD and can be regarded as a highly prevalent and preventable syndrome. However, cognition is not a standardized outcome measure in clinical trials assessing functional ability after stroke. Furthermore, with the exception of anti-hypertensive medications, the impact of either preventive or acute stroke treatments on cognitive outcome is not known. Although clinical, epidemiological, neuroimaging, and experimental data support the VCI concept, there is a lack of integrated knowledge on the role played by the most relevant pathophysiological mechanisms involved in several neurological conditions including stroke and cognitive impairment such as excitotoxicity, apoptosis, mitochondrial DNA damage, oxidative stress, disturbed neurotransmitter release, and inflammation. For this reason, in 2006 the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and the Canadian Stroke Network (CSN) defined a set of data elements to be collected in future studies aimed at defining VCI etiology, clinical manifestations, predictive factors, and treatment. These recommendations represent the first step toward developing diagnostic criteria for VCI based on sound knowledge rather than on hypotheses. The second step will be to integrate all studies using the agreed methodologies. This is likely to accelerate the search for answers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".