MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214543959 · doi:10.1002/alz.12637

The apathy, gait impairment, and executive dysfunction (AGED) triad vascular variant

2022· article· en· W4214543959 on OpenAlexafffund
Vladimir Hachinski, Elizabeth Finger, Frederico Pieruccini‐Faria, Manuel Montero‐Odasso

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsParkwood InstituteLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsApathyBasal gangliaThalamusExecutive dysfunctionNeuroscienceEtiologyBrainstemMedicinePsychologyPathologyCentral nervous systemCognitionNeuropsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Apathy, gait disturbances, and executive dysfunction (AGED) often occur together. Although they can arise independently, the presence of one might portend another. This recognition suggests the possible etiology. We focus on the most common, the vascular. We explain the AGED vascular mechanism through the ambibaric brain concept. The brain contains two complementary blood pressure systems: One high in the primitive brain (brainstem, basal ganglia, and thalamus) and a low-pressure system in the Homo sapiens brain (cerebral hemispheres). Hypertension inflicts the most damage on the primitive brain. The frontal systems connect to the basal ganglia, then the thalamus and back to the cortex. Many connections converge on the primitive brain where they are damaged by vascular disease. We need methods of determining optimal, individual blood pressures. Although the AGED triad can result from other causes, it should first signal a vascular etiology, the most prevalent, treatable, and preventable one.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207