MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Responsiveness of Outcome Measures Used in an Antidementia Drug Trial

2000· article· en· W2005686313 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kenneth Rockwood, Paul Stolee

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical trialStatisticDrug trialMedicineOutcome (game theory)Internal medicineStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The responsiveness of outcome measures used in antidementia drug trials has had little formal analysis, but it can be crucial to the interpretation of a medication's effectiveness. The authors report the responsiveness of outcome measures from the Canadian trial of linopirdine, a novel phenylinodolinone, estimated using an effect size statistic. The effect sizes ranged from 0.10-0.26, with the cognitive and functional measures yielding estimates greater than 0.20, a level held to be clinically detectable. All of the standard measures used in this trial, save one, performed better than the global clinical measure. The global clinical measure used in this study may have been too insensitive to detect minimal clinical change.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.293
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.136 · 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

Citations9
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer Disease & Associated DisordersSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207