Expert elicitation of risk factors for progression to dementia in individuals with mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study assesses experts' beliefs about important predictors of developing dementia in persons with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). METHODS: Structured expert elicitation, a methodology to quantify expert knowledge, was used to elicit the most important risk factors for developing dementia. We recruited 11 experts (6 neurologists, 3 geriatricians, and 2 psychiatrists). Ten experts fully participated in introductory meetings, two rounds of surveys, and discussion meetings. The data from these ten experts were utilized for this study. RESULTS: The expert elicitation identified age, CSF analysis, fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) findings, hippocampal atrophy, MoCA (or MMSE) score, parkinsonism, apathy, psychosis, informant report of cognitive symptoms, and global atrophy as the ten most important predictors of progressing to dementia in persons with MCI. DISCUSSION: Several dementia predictors are not routinely collected in existing registries, observational studies, or usual care. This might partially explain the low uptake of existing published dementia risk scores in clinical practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".