MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971510992 · doi:10.2307/3315864

Bayesian estimation of cognitive decline in patients with alzheimer's disease

2002· article· en· W1971510992 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGibbs samplingBayesian probabilityBayes' theoremCognitionCognitive declineEconometricsEstimationBayesian hierarchical modelingBayesian inferenceStatisticsComputer scienceDiseasePsychologyMathematicsDementiaMedicinePsychiatryEconomicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recently, there has been great interest in estimating the decline in cognitive ability in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Measuring decline is not straightforward, since one must consider the choice of scale to measure cognitive ability, possible floor and ceiling effects, between‐patient variability, and the unobserved age of onset. The authors demonstrate how to account for the above features by modeling decline in scores on the Mini‐Mental State Exam in two different data sets. To this end, they use hierarchical Bayesian models with change points, for which posterior distributions are calculated using the Gibbs sampler. They make comparisons between several such models using both prior and posterior Bayes factors, and compare the results from the models suggested by these two model selection criteria.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.221 · 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