Progress in Clinical Neurosciences: Cognitive Markers of Progression in Alzheimer's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this review is to summarize the literature on Alzheimer's disease progression utilizing cognitive batteries to track change over time. Studies published in English and obtained through PubMed searches (1983-2004) were included (i) if they had a longitudinal design and followed probable Alzheimer's patients diagnosed by National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke/Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual III/IV criteria, and (ii) if the techniques used for serial assessment were well-established in terms of validity and reliability. Longitudinal studies examining Alzheimer's disease progression report highly variable annual rates of change in decline rate. It remains unclear if this reflects disease subgroups or stage-related rate of decline. In conclusion a combination of stage-appropriate cognitive tests such as the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale and the Severe Impairment Battery, along with appropriate statistical methods to account for individual variability in decline rates, can capture the progression of Alzheimer disease and may be useful in further investigation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".