The Worried Well? Characteristics of Cognitively Normal Patients Presenting to a Rural and Remote Memory Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In an effort to better understand why cognitively normal patients were referred to a memory clinic, we sought to identify features of "worried well" patients to better identify those more likely to be cognitively normal. METHODS: In total, 375 consecutive patients referred by primary care practitioners to a Rural and Remote Memory Clinic were categorized into two groups based on their neurologic diagnosis, "worried well" (cognitively normal, N=81) or "other" (patients with any neurologic diagnosis, N=294). Data collected included: age, sex, years of formal education, Mini-Mental Status Examination score from initial visit, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale score, Self-Rating of Memory Scale, alcohol consumption, marital status, hours per week of work, past medical history, sleep concerns, and family history of memory concerns. The two groups were compared using t-tests and χ2 tests. The same comparison was done between the same set of "worried well" patients (cognitively normal, N=81) and the subgroup of patients with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (N=146) from the "other" group. RESULTS: Significant differences included younger age, more formal education, more frequently having previous psychiatric diagnosis and more self-reported alcohol consumption in the "worried well" group. The "worried well" and "Alzheimer's disease" comparison had the same significant differences as the "worried well" and "other" comparison. CONCLUSION: We observed a pattern of differences unfold between the "worried well" patients and those with cognitive disease. No one variable was pathognomonic of a "worried well" patient. However, taking all the above into account when evaluating a patient may help clinically.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".