Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable Meeting on Mild Cognitive Impairment: What have we learned?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The biological changes that occur in the brains of Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients are thought to begin long before the onset of clinical symptoms. Although current therapeutic agents have been approved only for patients with mild to moderate AD, Alzheimer-type pathology in patients with mild to moderate AD is already quite advanced. One impetus for the development of the concept of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) was the attempt to recognize AD early in its clinical expression and to determine whether it is possible through therapeutic interventions to improve the memory impairment at this stage or delay further progression to dementia. To this end, several clinical trials have been conducted in patients with MCI. On September 8 and 9, 2004 a meeting of the Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable was held at which experts in the field of MCI convened to review the collective experience from these trials and to consider potential approaches that might improve MCI clinical trials in the future. This article summarizes the presentations and discussions of that meeting.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.010 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".