MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2312671853 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100012129

Risk Profiles of Alzheimer Disease

2011· article· en· W2312671853 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Melanie Bilbul, Hyman M. Schipper

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDementiaDiseaseAlzheimer's diseaseMedicineRisk factorPsychological interventionCognitive impairmentGerontologyPsychiatryPsychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alzheimer disease (AD) is a dementing, neurodegenerative disorder that affects approximately 500,000 Canadians and its prevalence is expected to double over the next 30 years. Although several medications may temporarily augment cognitive abilities in AD, there presently exists no proven method to avoid the inevitable clinical deterioration in this devastating condition. The delineation of risk factors for the development of AD offers hope for the advent of effective prevention or interventions that might retard the onset of symptoms. In this article, we provide a comprehensive review of midlife risk factors implicated in the etiopathogenesis of sporadic AD. Although some risk factors are heritable and largely beyond our control, others are determined by lifestyle or environment and are potentially modifiable. In a companion paper, we introduce the concept of an Alzheimer Risk Assessment Clinic for ascertainment and mitigation of these and other putative dementia risk factors in middle-aged adults.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations30
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207