The Vascular Impairment of Cognition Classification Consensus Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Numerous diagnostic criteria have tried to tackle the variability in clinical manifestations and problematic diagnosis of vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) but none have been universally accepted. These criteria have not been readily comparable, impacting on clinical diagnosis rates and in turn prevalence estimates, research, and treatment. METHODS: The Vascular Impairment of Cognition Classification Consensus Study (VICCCS) involved participants (81% academic researchers) from 27 countries in an online Delphi consensus study. Participants reviewed previously proposed concepts to develop new guidelines. RESULTS: VICCCS had a mean of 122 (98-153) respondents across the study and a 67% threshold to represent consensus. VICCCS redefined VCI including classification of mild and major forms of VCI and subtypes. It proposes new standardized VCI-associated terminology and future research priorities to address gaps in current knowledge. DISCUSSION: VICCCS proposes a consensus-based updated conceptualization of VCI intended to facilitate standardization in research.
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 | 0.053 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".