Review of Outcome Measurement Instruments in Alzheimer's Disease Drug Trials: Psychometric Properties of Functional and Quality of Life Scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The psychometric properties of functional and quality of life outcome measures that were used for the purpose of showing changes in antidementia drug trials for Alzheimer's disease are described and critiqued. The seven functional scales reviewed for reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change included the Geriatric Evaluation by Relative's Rating Instrument, the Physical Self-Maintenance Scale, the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, the Blessed Dementia Scale, Part 1 and its revised version, the Interview for Deterioration in Daily Living with Dementia, the Unified Activities of Daily Living, and the Dependence Scale. The Progressive Deterioration Scale and Quality of Life Assessment were classified as quality of life scales. The majority of the scales were found to exhibit serious limitations, such as incomplete reliability and validity assessment for the intended uses. The most pervasive problem was a lack of data on responsiveness to change. It is recommended that further research be conducted to develop new tools or enhance existing measures for the assessment of both quality of life and functional ability.
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 | 0.033 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".