Brain health clinics – An evolving clinical pathway?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dementia clinics traditionally focus on diagnosis and post-diagnostic care. Awareness is increasing that attention to risk factors and their prevention also forms a key part of dementia management. OBJECTIVES: To describe our Bristol Brain Health clinic including 1) Clinical pathway 2) Patient population 3) Patient experience 4) Evaluation in line with published gold standards. DESIGN/ SETTING: Observational, (longitudinal/retrospective) clinical cohort study of patients attending the North Bristol NHS Trust's Brain Health Service. PARTICIPANTS: One-hundred and ten patients with mild cognitive disorders attending clinic between 2017- 2023. MEASUREMENTS: We collected data from medical records including clinical assessments, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) for biomarkers of Alzheimer's Disease (AD), and a lifestyle questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were performed and a clinic evaluation was carried out using recommendations from The European Task Force for Brain Health Services. RESULTS: Average age was 63.9 years (SD: 11.2). 74 patients were male (62.8 %). The mean baseline Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score was 24.4 (SD: 3.6). 73 patients (66.4 %) received a preventative lifestyle intervention with a review of risk and protective factors for dementia, and development of a bespoke risk reduction plan. Commonly identified risk factors; low mood; n = 61 (55.5 %), hypertension; n = 54 (49.1 %), high cholesterol; n = 42 (47.3 %), and hearing loss; n = 44 (40 %). CSF testing for AD was carried out in 38 individuals and was positive in 17 cases. At last review, one fifth of patients had progressed to dementia. Most common diagnoses; AD; n = 22 (20 %), Functional Cognitive Disorder; n = 16 (14.6 %), Vascular; n = 8 (7.3 %). Patient feedback was good, with all responders recommending the clinic and more than three-quarters of patients being 'extremely likely" to. Clinic evaluation highlighted 'Risk Assessment' and 'Personalised Intervention' as brain health pillar strengths. 'Cognitive Enhancement' was an area for further development. CONCLUSIONS: Our patients had access to a range of cutting-edge, diagnostic assessments, in addition to a preventative lifestyle intervention. Our population had a high rate of dementia risk factors and a heterogeneous range of diagnoses. CSF biomarker testing was helpful for differentiating between those with early AD, and others with a multi-factorial presentation. The attendance rates for our preventative intervention suggests patients are receptive to taking a proactive approach to managing risk. This population merits further investigation and continued targeting with preventative measures.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".