Reliability of Information Collected by Proxy in Family Studies of Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study evaluated the reliability of data obtained from proxy informants. The index subjects in this study were 81 nondemented participants in the Multi-Institutional Research in Alzheimer Genetic Epidemiology (MIRAGE) study. These index subjects and 159 proxy informants, identified by the index subjects, participated in the study. The kappa statistic with multiple raters per subject (for dichotomous variables) and the intraclass correlation coefficient (for continuous variables) were used to measure reliability. Among proxy respondents who provided answers, there was excellent agreement between proxy responses and the responses of the index subjects (0.7 < or = kappa < or =0.9), with the exception of questions about head injury (kappa = 0.4). A large proportion (>90%) of the proxy informants in this study were able to provide information on most items. Higher nonresponse rates (as high as 30%) were observed for medication history and women's health questions. This study supports the reliability of proxy responses for most categories of questions that are elicited in typical epidemiological studies, including the MIRAGE study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.203 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".