Printed in U.S.A. Vector Diagnostics in Dementia Derived from Bayes ' Theorem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces the concept of vector diagnostics. In contrast to the conventional approach where one diagnosis takes precedence, the authors propose an alternative strategy that addresses the clinical reality of comorbidity and multiple diagnoses for an individual. Based on a Bayesian approach, the probability distribution for the etiologically heterogeneous dementia diagnoses is estimated from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging database. These data were collected between February 1991 and May 1992. This method facilitates the establishment of a probability for more than one diagnosis within a given individual. By analyzing the correspondence between diagnostic groups, it is demonstrated that some clinical diagnoses are not reliably distinguished on the basis of the considered subset of symptoms and signs. As a consequence, the conventional diagnostic categories might require revision. The resulting probabilistic algorithm allows for the mining of existing epidemiologic databases for patterns of signs and symptoms that characterize emerging diagnostic categories which might better account for the heterogeneity of the dementia subtypes and individual variability. Am J Epidemiol 1997;146:665-71. Bayes theorem; comorbidity; dementia; diagnosis, differential Conventional approaches to the clinical assessment of the syndrome of dementia require a single etiologic
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.267 | 0.132 |
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".