MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053497883 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2012.10.008

Establishing the psychometric underpinning of cognition measures for clinical trials of Alzheimer's disease and its precursors: A new approach

2013· article· en· W2053497883 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Holly Posner, Stefan Cano, María C. Carrillo, Ola A. Selnes, Yaakov Stern, Ronald G. Thomas, John Zajicek, Jeremy Hobart

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative
KeywordsDementiaCognitionDiseaseClinical trialNeuroimagingPsychologyAlzheimer's diseaseClinical psychologyPsychometricsMedicinePsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Alzheimer's disease (AD) Cognitive Behavior Section (ADAS-Cog) is the most commonly used cognitive test in clinical trials of AD. Recent trials have focused on people earlier in the course of disease; however, there are concerns about using the ADAS-Cog at this crucial stage. Using data from the Alzheimer's disease Neuroimaging Initiative study, we used a range of traditional psychometric tests to evaluate those concerns. This issue of Alzheimer's & Dementia includes two articles that evaluate the ADAS-Cog. These articles report evaluations using two psychometric approaches: traditional methods and new methods. In this review, we provide accompanying background information to this program of research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.546
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.576
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5460.576
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.004
Bibliometrics0.0170.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.017
Scholarly communication0.0130.022
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0060.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.260
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207