P4‐282: Reconciliation of different estimates of dementia prevalence and monetary costs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Widely differing estimates of prevalence and monetary costs of dementia were reported by the Alzheimer Society of Canada's “Rising Tide: The Impact of Dementia on Canadian Society” in 2009, the 2011 Report from the Mental Health Commission of Canada, and, the 2014 National Population Study of Neurological Conditions. The Rising Tide report was based on a community survey of 10,000 people -- the Canadian Study of Health and Aging estimated 521,280 persons with dementia lived in Canada in 2011. The other two reports were based on provincial health services administrative data in Manitoba and British Columbia, respectively, and their estimates were 747,129 and 340,170. The aims of this project were to identify different estimation methods including their strengths and limitations and create a consensus among experts about how to produce estimates as well as appraise reports providing estimates. Stage I of a two stage approach was to conduct a synthesis of existing literature that outlined the methodological guidelines that should be used when using the two main sources of prevalence and monetary estimates: administrative data bases and community epidemiologic surveys. Stage II brought together national and international thought leaders in epidemiology and health economics to agree on the standards (e.g. assumptions, methods and data sources) to be used when estimating dementia prevalence and monetary costs. Two important determinants of differences in estimates of dementia prevalence are: decisions on what level of severity of dementia to include, that is, should mild cognitive impairment be included and data sources, community surveys and health administration data, will produce different estimates. Dementia prevalence projections require numerous age groupings only available in health administrative data bases. Costs should be calculated from a societal perspective and all age categories. Cost estimates are sensitive to: prevalence estimates, direct costs such as inclusion of different types of housing, number of persons with dementia within each housing type, length of time in each stage of severity of dementia, and what is included as indirect costs.
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 | 0.276 | 0.587 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".