MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4302304585 · doi:10.5772/intechopen.106192

Mild Cognitive Impairment: An Overview

2022· book-chapter· en· W4302304585 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Biraj Bhattarai, Hema Nagaraj

Bibliographic record

VenueIntechOpen eBooks · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive impairmentNeuroimagingCognitionMedicinePsychologyCognitive declineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentDementiaClinical psychologyPsychiatryInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heterogeneity of symptoms within and among mild cognitive impairment (MCI) individuals often makes it challenging to document cases clinically. Number of diagnostic criteria have been proposed in recent decades. MOCA and MMSE are two tests useful for the assessment of MCI, besides the neuroimaging studies with MRI and PET scan, have provided promising results in the early diagnosis of MCI. Lifestyle changes and cognitive training have been found to be more effective in the treatment of individuals with 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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.008

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations56
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntechOpen eBooksSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207