MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226205158 · doi:10.1002/mdc3.13451

Level I <scp>PD‐MCI</scp> Using Global Cognitive Tests and the Risk for Parkinson's Disease Dementia

2022· article· en· W4226205158 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders Clinical Practice · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersMichael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research
KeywordsNeuropsychologyMontreal Cognitive AssessmentDementiaParkinson's diseaseHazard ratioInternal medicineCognitionMedicineNeuropsychological testPsychologyPsychiatryDiseaseConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The criteria for PD-MCI allow the use of global cognitive tests. Their predictive value for conversion from PD-MCI to PDD, especially compared to comprehensive neuropsychological assessment, is unknown. Methods: The MDS PD-MCI Study Group combined four datasets containing global cognitive tests as well as a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment to define PD-MCI (n = 467). Risk for developing PDD was examined using a Cox model. Global cognitive tests were compared to neuropsychological test batteries (Level I&II) in determining risk for PDD. Results: = <0.001). The C-statistics for MMSE (0.72) and MoCA (0.70) were lower than those based on neuropsychological tests (Level I = 0.82; Level II = 0.81). Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy balance was best in Level II. Conclusion: MMSE and MoCA predict conversion to PDD. However, Level II neuropsychological assessment seems the preferred assessment for PD-MCI.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.318 · 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