MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221041873 · doi:10.1007/s40120-022-00338-8

Alzheimer’s Disease: Epidemiology and Clinical Progression

2022· review· en· W4221041873 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Abbas Tahami Monfared, Michael Byrnes, Leigh Ann White, Quanwu Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology and Therapy · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersEisai
KeywordsDementiaMedicineEpidemiologyCognitive declineDiseaseNeurodegenerationNeurologyAlzheimer's diseaseBiomarkerGerontologyInternal medicinePsychiatryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is prevalent throughout the world and is the leading cause of dementia in older individuals (aged ≥ 65 years). To gain a deeper understanding of the recent literature on the epidemiology of AD and its progression, we conducted a review of the PubMed-indexed literature (2014-2021) in North America, Europe, and Asia. The worldwide toll of AD is evidenced by rising prevalence, incidence, and mortality due to AD-estimates which are low because of underdiagnosis of AD. Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD can ultimately progress to AD dementia; estimates of AD dementia etiology among patients with MCI range from 40% to 75% depending on the populations studied and whether the MCI diagnosis was made clinically or in combination with biomarkers. The risk of AD dementia increases with progression from normal cognition with no amyloid-beta (Aβ) accumulation to early neurodegeneration and subsequently to MCI. For patients with Aβ accumulation and neurodegeneration, lifetime risk of AD dementia has been estimated to be 41.9% among women and 33.6% among men. Data on progression from preclinical AD to MCI are sparse, but an analysis of progression across the three preclinical National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association (NIA-AA) stages suggests that NIA-AA stage 3 (subtle cognitive decline with AD biomarker positivity) could be useful in combination with other tools for treatment decision-making. Factors shown to increase risk include lower Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score, higher Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog) score, positive APOE4 status, white matter hyperintensities volume, entorhinal cortex atrophy, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) total tau, CSF neurogranin levels, dependency in instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), and being female. Results suggest that use of biomarkers alongside neurocognitive tests will become an important part of clinical practice as new disease-modifying therapies are introduced.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.250
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations566
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology and TherapySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207