MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154259512 · doi:10.1186/alzrt198

Definitions of dementia and predementia states in Alzheimer's disease and vascular cognitive impairment: consensus from the Canadian conference on diagnosis of dementia

2013· article· en· W2154259512 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Howard Chertkow, Howard Feldman, Claudia Jacova, Fadi Massoud

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s Research & Therapy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia HospitalJewish General HospitalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill University
FundersNational Institute on AgingCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDementiaDiseaseCognitive impairmentConsensus conferenceCognitive declineGerontologyMedicineVascular dementiaAlzheimer's diseaseCognitionPsychiatryPsychologyPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There have been several newly proposed sets of diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease/mild cognitive impairment, advanced by the National Institute of Aging/Alzheimer's Association working groups in 2011 and by the International Working Group in 2007 and 2010. These sets each aim to provide broader disease stage coverage with incorporation of disease biomarkers into the diagnostic process. They have focused particular attention on the earlier identification of disease with focus on the preclinical and predementia stages. This paper reviews these diagnostic criteria and provides 2012 consensus recommendations from the Canadian Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia on their applications in both clinical and research settings.

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)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0130.010
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0130.006
Research integrity0.0050.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.248 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations199
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s Research & TherapySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207