MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2517408568 · doi:10.1159/000448213

A Systematic Review of the Definitions of Vascular Cognitive Impairment, No Dementia in Cohort Studies

2016· review· en· W2517408568 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie L. Harrison, Eugene Tang, Hannah A. D. Keage, John‐Paul Taylor, Louise Allan, Louise Robinson, Carol Jagger, Kenneth Rockwood, Blossom C. M. Stephan

Bibliographic record

VenueDementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityInstitute of Aging
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsDementiaPsycINFOCohortMedicineVascular dementiaCognitive impairmentCohort studyCognitionMEDLINEInternal medicineGerontologyPsychiatryDiseaseBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/AIMS: No set operational criteria for vascular cognitive impairment, no dementia (VCI-ND) have yet been established. The aim of this study is to undertake a systematic review to compare definitions of VCI-ND that have been used in cohort studies. METHODS: Medline, PsycINFO and Embase were searched from inception to October 13, 2015. Initially, 3,142 records were screened, and 30 were included in this review. RESULTS: No single set of criteria for defining VCI-ND was identified. VCI-ND was broadly defined as an absence of dementia, cognitive impairment in at least one cognitive domain with signs of vascular involvement, and intact activities of daily living. CONCLUSION: Defining criteria will enable individuals with VCI-ND to be efficiently compared across cohort studies to more accurately determine the prevalence and risk of dementia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations26
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDementia and Geriatric Cognitive DisordersSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207