MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Disability Assessment for Dementia Scale: A 12-Month Study of Functional Ability in Mild to Moderate Severity Alzheimer Disease

2001· article· en· W1996866846 on OpenAlexaff
Howard Feldman, Annette Sauter, A. Donald, Isabelle Gélinas, Serge Gauthier, K. Torfs, Wim Parys, A Mehnert

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaActivities of daily livingPlaceboAlzheimer's diseaseMedicineRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyDiseasePsychologyGerontologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Disability Assessment for Dementia (DAD) scale was developed and validated as a measure of functional ability in dementia. DAD results have been reported in Alzheimer disease (AD) randomized, controlled treatment trials of up to 6 months, but results beyond 6 months have yet to be described. SAB INT 12 was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in mild to moderate AD that included DAD assessments at baseline, month 6, and month 12. One hundred forty-four patients with AD in the placebo arm of SAB INT 12 were followed up for 12 months. DAD scores were obtained at baseline (mean DAD = 70.1, SD = 22.2), 6 months (mean DAD = 63.7, SD = 25.2), and 12 months (mean DAD = 59.3, SD = 28.9). The rate of decline was consistent across the domains of basic activities of daily living (ADLs) and instrumental ADLs, as well as the scoring of initiation, planning, and organization. The decline in DAD total scores in mild to moderate AD averages about one point per month, which equates to the loss of one item on the DAD scale every 2 months.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations131
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer Disease & Associated DisordersSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207