A ‘Comprehensive Visual Rating Scale’ for predicting progression to dementia in patients with mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous efforts have been made to identify biomarkers for predicting the progression of dementia in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and recently, a comprehensive visual rating scale (CVRS) based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been validated to assess structural changes in the brain of elderly patients. Based on this, the present study investigated the use of CVRS for predicting dementia and elucidated its association with cognitive change in patients with MCI over a three-year follow-up. METHODS: We included 340 patients with MCI with more than one follow-up visit. Data were obtained from the Alzheimer's disease Neuroimaging Initiative study. We assessed all the patients using CVRS and determined their progression to dementia during a follow-up period of over 3 years. The cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze hazard ratios (HRs) of CVRS for disease progression. Further, multiple cognitive measures of the patients over time were fitted using the random effect model to assess the effect of initial CVRS score on subsequent cognitive changes. RESULTS: Of 340 patients, 69 (20.2%) progressed to dementia and the median baseline score (interquartile range) of CVRS significantly differed between stable MCI and progressive MCI (9 (5-13) vs 13 (8-17), p<0.001). The initial CVRS score was independently associated with an increased risk of progression to dementia (HR 1.123, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.059-1.192). From 12 to 24 months, the effect of the interaction between CVRS and interval of follow-up visit on cognitive performance achieved significance (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline CVRS predicted the progression to dementia in patients with MCI, and was independently associated with longitudinal cognitive decline.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".