MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3086434969 · doi:10.3233/jad-200674

Future Directions for Dementia Risk Reduction and Prevention Research: An International Research Network on Dementia Prevention Consensus

2020· article· en· W3086434969 on OpenAlexaff
Kaarin J. Anstey, Ruth Peters, Lidan Zheng, Deborah E. Barnes, Carol Brayne, Henry Brodaty, John Chalmers, Linda Clare, Roger A. Dixon, Hiroko H. Dodge, Nicola T. Lautenschlager, Laura E. Middleton, Chengxuan Qiu, Glenn Rees, Suzana Shahar, Kristine Yaffe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Alzheimer s Disease · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute on AgingKarolinska InstitutetNational Health and Medical Research CouncilSwedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher EducationVetenskapsrådetAustralian Government
KeywordsDementiaRepresentativeness heuristicGerontologyMedicinePsychologyDiseaseSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past decade a large body of evidence has accumulated on risk factors for dementia, primarily from Europe and North America. Drawing on recent integrative reviews and a consensus workshop, the International Research Network on Dementia Prevention developed a consensus statement on priorities for future research. Significant gaps in geographical location, representativeness, diversity, duration, mechanisms, and research on combinations of risk factors were identified. Future research to inform dementia risk reduction should fill gaps in the evidence base, take a life-course, multi-domain approach, and inform population health approaches that improve the brain-health of whole communities.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.292 · 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.

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

Citations41
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Alzheimer s DiseaseSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207