A Comparison of Clinical Diagnostic Classification Criteria Used in Longitudinal Cohort Studies of the Alzheimer’s Disease Continuum: A Systematic Review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alzheimer's is a progressive disease, with a long preclinical phase of many decades. Accurate classification within longitudinal cohort studies is crucial for understanding disease progression and for the comparability and collaboration across studies. The main objective of this systematic review was to identify and compare the diagnostic criteria used in prospective population study cohorts centering on the Alzheimer's disease clinical continuum in older adults. A review was performed of cohort studies started in the year 2000 or later, with a follow-up duration of at least 3 years among people aged between 50 and 85 years old living in the community. Original studies were searched in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Two independent reviewers agreed on the final selection of 28 studies covering 25 cohorts. One study was identified by three independent judges as having methodological limitations due to inadequate reporting as per the modified NIH quality assessment tool. Data was extracted from each included study using a standardized extraction form. In general, the studies followed fewer than 1500 participants. The results showed convergence in the choice of diagnostic classification criteria among the 25 cohorts studied especially for the later stages of AD, while criteria for the earliest stages showed greater variability. Only five cohorts studied were concerned with the follow-up of the full spectrum of the disease. Our study may help to put in place a unified set of clinical diagnostic criteria across the continuum of Alzheimer's disease, rather than criteria developed specifically for a given study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it