MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2429700902 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2016.38

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of the Incidence and Prevalence of Dementia and Its Commoner Neurodegenerative Causes

2016· review· en· W2429700902 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Nathalie Jetté, Colleen J. Maxwell, Kirsten M. Fiest, David B. Hogan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSouth Health CampusUniversity of WaterlooHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersHealth CanadaAlberta InnovatesGovernment of CanadaPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsCommonerIncidence (geometry)DementiaMeta-analysisMedicineDemographyGerontologyPathologyGeographyDiseaseMathematicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.017
Bibliometrics0.0120.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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 head0.297
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.135 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicMedical Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207