Why Participate in an Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trial? Is It of Benefit to Carers and Patients?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We explored carer motivation for seeking participation for a relative in an Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical drug trial, to assess impressions of the value of trial participation. We also surveyed the carers of patients who did not meet study entry screening criteria to see if our conduct of the screening visit was acceptable and ethical. METHOD: A retrospective questionnaire was sent to the carers of 36 randomized participants and 22 carers of patients who did not meet study entry screening criteria for an AD clinical treatment trial. RESULTS: Twenty-nine (81%) of the trial participant carers and 15 (68%) of carers of the group who did not meet study entry criteria returned their questionnaires with sufficient information for analysis. The prime motivators in seeking trial participation were to help their relative feel better and live longer, to contribute to medical science, to improve the health of others, and the hope of a cure. Carers of both groups found research staff supportive and would recommend trial participation to others. CONCLUSIONS: Even though trial participation is onerous and patients were generally perceived by carers as not having improved, both the screening visit and participation in the trial itself were seen as positive experiences and the expectations of carers were met.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".