Estimating Antemortem Cognitive Status of Deceased Subjects in a Longitudinal Study of Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There was a five-year delay between the two waves of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging during which 2,982 participants died. Their cognitive status before death should be taken into account in estimating the incidence of dementia in the cohort. Information concerning antemortem cognitive status was available from death certificates and from an interview with a close relative of the decedent at the CSHA-2 follow-up. The interview included a direct question on whether the person had been diagnosed with dementia and questions covering cognitive signs and symptoms from which we formed an algorithm to predict probability of dementia. These sources of information were validated using a small sample of study participants who died within five months of undergoing the CSHA clinical examination. Sensitivity of the death certificate and the question regarding diagnosis of dementia was low (33% and 44%), although their specificity was very high. Accordingly, we combined these with the predictive algorithm to form an overall estimate of the probability of antemortem dementia. This raised the sensitivity to 82% (specificity 93%).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".