MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2765744572 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2017.06.1493

[P3–279]: MILD COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT TREATMENT: PROVIDER PATTERNS ACROSS MEDICAL SPECIALTIES

2017· article· en· W2765744572 on OpenAlexaff
Chris A. Brady, Gladys Valdez, Stacey Rumerman, Kristina Bertzos, Jason Fox

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsinVentiv Health Clinical
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDemographicsMedical diagnosisMemory clinicCognitive impairmentDiseasePopulationFamily medicineCognitionPediatricsPsychiatryInternal medicineDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), specifically the amnestic subtype (MCIa), tend to progress to probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) at a rate of approximately 10%-15% per year. Individuals often first consult with general practitioners (GPs) when they start to experience a decline in memory. However, symptoms of MCI can be subtle and providers without specialized training may attribute MCI symptoms to normal aging, resulting in possible under-diagnosing of MCI and missed opportunities to slow the disease progression. This research examined treatment provider trends for patients diagnosed with MCI and AD. Data were obtained from the TreatmentAnswers™ database, which includes data from 3,219 US-based physicians. One day each month, participating physicians complete a survey about patient activity during that day, including visit information, patient/physician demographics, diagnostic information, and intended drug therapy. Data collected are projected to the wider US population using a standardized projection factor. This investigation included a review of the 2015 data for patients with ICD-9 diagnoses of either MCI or AD. Data were summarized by provider (Neurologists, Psychiatrists, Generalists and all others) then stratified by gender and age. Neurologists treated the majority of patients diagnosed with MCI (79.4%). Non-neurologists treated fewer MCI patients than patients with AD. 100% of MCI patients seen by GPs were over the age of 81. Neurologists saw the majority of patients diagnosed with MCI across all age groups, whereas GPs only saw patients with MCI who were over the age of 81. These results may indicate that GPs are either referring MCI cases to neurologists or they might not be making MCI diagnoses as frequently as warranted. Early identification of individuals with MCI is crucial in providing treatment as early as possible in the course of the illness. With an aging population, it is imperative that non-neurologists be equipped with the tools to screen and diagnose AD and other dementias.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.003

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→