Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past two decades there has been a tremendous effort among clinicians and searchers to improve the diagnostic criteria of the dementias on the basis of the differential neurological and neuropsychological profiles. This was an obligatory requirement for clinical trials and the development of treatments. Over the years it became rapidly evident that the cohorts of patients in studies had some degree of heterogeneity, making it difficult to interpret the results of some studies, particularly in the vascular dementias and the mild cognitive impairment (MCI) group. For example, many sub-types of the vascular group were included in clinical trials, such as the cortical strokes, the lacunar states and the diffuse white matter disease cases, and some of the patients might have had also mixed pathology. In addition, the standard DSM IV criteria for dementia no longer represent our present knowledge of the clinical profile of some of the dementias such as vascular dementia (VaD) and fronto-temporal dementia where the memory impairment is not necessarily the first requirement. To improve the validity of clinical trials and eventually help developing more appropriate treatments, we revised the present diagnostic criteria and made recommendations for some changes in the context of the 2nd Canadian Conference on the Development of Antidementia Therapies, held in 2004 and reviewed in the light of the recent literature as of early 2006. It is expected that in the near future, these dementia criteria for clinical trials will have to be revised again in order to include specific subtypes of the dementias as well as biomarkers, structural and functional imaging.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
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".