The ADAS‐cog and clinically meaningful change in the VISTA clinical trial of galantamine for Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A minimum 4-point change at 6 months on the Alzheimer's disease assessment scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) is deemed clinically important, but this cut-point has been little studied in relation to clinical meaningfulness. In an investigator-initiated, clinical trial of galantamine, we investigated the extent to which a 4-point change classifies goal attainment by individual patients. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the video imaging synthesis of treating Alzheimer's disease (VISTA) study: a 4-month, multi-centre, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, trial of galantamine in 130 mild-moderate Alzheimer's disease patients (4-month open-label follow-up). ADAS-cog responses at 6 months were compared with outcomes on three clinical measures: clinician's interview based impression of change-plus caregiver input (CIBIC+), patient/carer-goal attainment scaling (PGAS) and clinician-GAS (CGAS). RESULTS: Thirty-seven of 99 patients improved by > or = 4 points on the ADAS-cog at 6 months, and 16/99 showed > or = 4-point worsening. ADAS-cog change scores correlated notionally to modestly with changes on the CGAS (r = -0.31), the PGAS (r = -0.29) and the CIBIC+ (r = 0.31). As a group, patients with ADAS-cog improvement were significantly more likely to improve on the clinical measures; those who worsened showed non-significant clinical decline. Individually, about half were misclassified in relation to each clinical measure; often when the ADAS-Cog detected 'no change', clinically meaningful effects could be detected. Even so, no ADAS-Cog cut-point optimally classified patients' clinical responses. CONCLUSION: A 4-point ADAS-cog change at 6 months is clinically meaningful for groups. Substantial individual misclassification between the ADAS-cog and clinical measures suggests no inherent meaning to a 4-point ADAS-cog change for a given patient.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".