MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410216994 · doi:10.23785/praxis.2025.04.002

[The Swiss Memory Clinics recommendations for the diagnosis of dementia - an update].

2025· review· en· W4410216994 on OpenAlexaff
Julius Popp, Tatjana Meyer-Heim, Markus Bürge, Michael M. Ehrensperger, Ansgar Felbecker, Hans Pihan, Nadège Barro-Belaygues, Christian Chicherio, Bogdan Draganski, Irene Bopp-Kistler, Andrea Brioschi, Matthias Brühlmeier, Karin Brügger, Gianclaudio Casutt, Valentina Garibotto, Dan Georgescu, Anton Gietl, Andrea Grubauer, Freimut Jüngling, Sonja M. Kagerer, Eberhard Kirsch, Vera Kolly, Gabriela Latour Erlinger, Andreas U. Monsch, Laura Rinke, Rafael Meyer

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychiatric care and mental health services
Canadian institutionsGreenfield Research (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMemory clinicPsychologyMedicinePsychiatryGerontologyInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The early and accurate diagnosis is the basic prerequisite for timely, targeted and individually tailored counselling, treatment and support for people developing cognitive impairment. The association Swiss Memory Clinics (SMC) has elaborated detailed quality standards for the assessment of cognitive disorders, published them for the first time in 2018 and updated them in 2024. These recommendations present the current diagnostic guidelines and examination options, along with proposed standards for the relevant procedures. Single areas such as anamnesis, clinical examination, laboratory assessments, neuropsychological testing and neuroradiological procedures are discussed as part of the standard diagnostics and the complementary investigation methods for differential diagnostics. Furthermore, the disclosure of the diagnosis and counselling are now described as an integral part of the diagnostic process. The most important objectives of the recommendations for the diagnosis of dementia disorders remain to enable high-quality early and accurate diagnostics of cognitive disorders throughout Switzerland; and to provide a practical guide for clinicians in primary care and memory clinics.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.008

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPsychiatric care and mental health servicesFrench-language works237,207