Assessment of Suspected Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the Second Canadian Consensus Conference on Dementia (CCCD) (February, 1998), a group of neurologists, geriatricians, and psychiatrists met to consider guidelines for evaluation of dementia in Canada. This review paper formed a background paper for their discussion of dementia diagnosis. These experts from across the country concluded that diagnosis of suspected dementia cases continued to rest on skilled clinical assessment. Mental status exam, preferably in some quantifiable form, has become an essential part of the assessment. Selected laboratory tests are advisable in all cases (CBC, TSH, electrolytes, calcium, and glucose), but the CCCD continued to advise that CT scanning was mandatory only in selected cases where clinical findings pointed to another possibility besides Alzheimer's disease. The growing list of other diagnostic measures with potential usefulness in diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease or dementia in general was reviewed, but the evidence was judged as insufficient to support routine use of these tests by physicians. As new treatments for Alzheimer's disease become available, neurologists face new diagnostic challenges--differentiating Mild Cognitive Impairment, Frontotemporal dementias and Mixed dementias, and Lewy Body Dementia. Guidelines to aid in differential diagnosis are presented.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".