MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239279510 · doi:10.1176/jnp.2008.20.2.150

Comparability of the Clinical Diagnostic Criteria for Vascular Dementia: A Critical Review. Part I

2008· review· en· W4239279510 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuropsychiatry · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and genetic disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComparabilityDementiaVascular dementiaMedicineIntensive care medicinePathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review is the first of a two-part series focusing on the comparability of eight clinical criteria used for the diagnosis of vascular dementia: the Hachinski Ischemic Scale; the Ischemic Scale of Rosen; the criteria proposed by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder-Third Edition (DSM-III), DSM-III-R, DSM-IV; International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10); State of California Alzheimer's Disease Diagnostic and Treatment Centers (ADDTC); and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke-Association Internationale pour la Recherche et l'Enseignement en Neurosciences (NINDS-AIREN). The authors discuss the critical issues related to the definition of the cognitive syndromes as well as the vascular causes and associated heterogeneity of symptomatology across these criteria.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.330 · 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