Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the first description of Alzheimer's disease (AD) at the beginning of the century until relatively recently, it was customary to define Alzheimer's disease as occurring in the presenium. The same neuropathological changes occurring in brains over the age of 65 were called "senile dementia." Because there have been no clinical or pathological features to separate the two groups, this somewhat arbitrary distinction has been abandoned. Although AD is currently considered to be a heterogeneous disease, the most consistent risk factor to be implicated other than advancing age is the presence of a positive family history. This potential genetic vulnerability to AD has been recognized for some time. Some of the earliest evidence suggestive of a genetic contribution to AD came from Kallmann's 1956 study (1) demonstrating a higher concordance rate in monozygotic twins for "parenchymatous senile dementia" compared with dizygotic twins and siblings. This monozygotic excess has been confirmed in studies applying more rigorous diagnostic criteria although there may be widely disparate ages of onset between twins (2). The most convincing evidence for a genetic contribution to AD has come form the study of pedigrees in which the pattern of disease segregation can be clearly defined. Thus, the abandonment of the early and late-onset dichotomy has occurred at a time when, at the genetic level, important differences have been identified through the discovery of specific gene defects in early onset cases.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".