MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169347737 · doi:10.1093/arclin/acq093

Including Persistency of Impairment in Mild Cognitive Impairment Classification Enhances Prediction of 5-Year Decline

2010· article· en· W2169347737 on OpenAlexafffund
Susan Vandermorris, David F. Hultsch, Michael A. Hunter, Stuart MacDonald, Eva von Strauss

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Clinical Neuropsychology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Victoria
FundersFonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’AgricultureCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCognitive impairmentDementiaCognitive declineCognitionPsychologyCognitive Assessment SystemGerontologyAudiologyMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although older adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) show elevated rates of conversion to dementia as a group, heterogeneity of outcomes is common at the individual level. Using data from a prospective 5-year longitudinal investigation of cognitive change in healthy older adults (N = 262, aged 64-92 years), this study addressed limitations in contemporary MCI identification procedures which rely on single occasion assessment ("Single-Assessment [SA] MCI") by evaluating an alternate operational definition of MCI requiring evidence of persistent cognitive impairment over multiple-testing sessions ("Multiple-Assessment [MA] MCI"). As hypothesized, prevalence of SA-MCI exceeded that of MA-MCI. Further, the MA-MCI groups showed lower baseline cognitive and functional performance and steeper cognitive decline compared with Control and SA-MCI group. Results are discussed with reference to retest effects and clinical implications.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Clinical NeuropsychologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207