MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mild cognitive impairment

2002· article· en· W2318755651 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Neurology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaCognitive impairmentCognitionDiseaseMedicineCognitive declineAlzheimer's diseaseCohortBiomarkerNatural historyPsychiatryPsychologyPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mild cognitive impairment is an emerging term that encompasses the clinical state between elderly normal cognition and dementia. Controversy surrounds its characterization, implementation, and definition. Mild cognitive impairment is now the focus of natural history studies, biomarker studies, along with Alzheimer's disease prevention studies. The mild cognitive impairment stage may be the optimum stage at which to intervene with preventive therapies. Depending on the cohort source and definition, between 19 and 50% of mild cognitive impairment individuals progress to dementia (usually Alzheimer's disease) over 3 years. Despite controversy, progress has been achieved in defining risk factors for progression from mild cognitive impairment to dementia. New treatments to prevent development of Alzheimer's disease are targeting mild cognitive impairment as a treatment group and neurologists will increasingly be called upon to make this diagnosis.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.296 · 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