MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410899506 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2025.10133

Study of the Spectrum of Treatable Dementias: Insights from a Large South Asian Cohort (TREAT-Dem Study)

2025· article· en· W4410899506 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mahammad Samim Mondal, Faheem Arshad, P Sastry, Bangalore Somashekar Keerthana, Aparna Somaraj, Sarath Govindaraj, S Sandeep Kumar, Priya Treesa Thomas, Subasree Ramakrishnan, Anita Mahadevan, Suvarna Alladi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohortMedicineCohort studyPediatricsGeographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background and Purpose: Dementia affects millions globally, with a subset of cases potentially reversible. This study evaluates the incidence, clinical markers and treatment outcomes of reversible dementias (ReDem). Method: This retrospective study included 370 ReDem cases from 1810 dementia patients. The ReDem cohort was split into potentially reversible dementias (PRD) and dual etiology (DE) groups. PRD encompassed secondary, potentially treatable dementia conditions, while DE included primary degenerative dementia (DD) with ≥1 uncontrolled comorbidity or new disease that worsened symptoms. Results: ReDem cases comprised 20.4% ( n = 370 out of 1810) of dementia patients, with ReDem patients being younger (mean 56.2 vs. 61.9 years, p < 0.001) and exhibiting shorter illness durations than DD patients ( p < 0.001). Key red flags, including young age (<45 years) at onset (DD = 8.6% vs. ReDem = 18.1%), fluctuation in symptoms (DD = 3.4% vs. ReDem = 11.6%), rapid cognitive decline (DD = 6.9% vs. ReDem = 18.4), high-risk exposures (DD = 0.1% vs. ReDem = 0.8%), high-risk behavior (DD = 0.1% vs. ReDem = 2.4%) and incongruent neuropsychological findings(DD = 1.0% vs. 12.7%), were significantly more frequent in ReDem cases ( p < 0.05). Odds increased with each red flag present (≥1: OR = 5.94; ≥2: OR = 20.69; ≥3: OR = 25.14, p < 0.05). Reversible etiologies included immune (20.0%), neuroinfectious (6.6%), psychiatric (7.6%), nutritional/metabolic (10.5%), neurosurgical (14.6%) and other causes (12.2%). Of the 41% (152/370) followed, 19 expired, 63.9% (85/133) reported subjective improvement, and 31.6% (42/133) showed clinical dementia rating improvement. Discussion and Conclusion: This large-scale study underscores the importance of comprehensive diagnostic evaluations for ReDem. Identifying and treating reversible conditions and comorbidities in DD can improve patient outcomes, emphasizing the need for thorough evaluations in memory clinics and targeted interventions in dementia care.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→