MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2090508874 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2009.04.064

P1‐060: Social impact in the measurement of clinically meaningful change: Findings from the cross‐sectional validation of the Clinical Meaningfulness in Alzheimer Disease Treatment (CLIMAT) scale

2009· article· en· W2090508874 on OpenAlexaff
Claudia Jacova, Michael Schulzer, Jonathan Money, Sirad Deria, Anthony L. Kupferschmidt, B. Lynn Beattie, Howard Feldman

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCorrelationClinical psychologySeverity of illnessCross-sectional studyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a need for novel assessment methods in the determination of clinically meaningful change in Alzheimer Disease (AD). The Clinical Meaningfulness in Alzheimer Disease Treatment (CLIMAT) scale is a newly developed instrument that targets two constructs: severity, defined as the magnitude of AD symptoms, and social impact, defined as the importance patients and caregivers attribute to AD symptoms. If social impact can be established as a construct distinct from disease severity, it could aid in weighting treatment benefit in AD. This cross-sectional study investigated the relationship between CLIMAT severity and social impact ratings. The CLIMAT covers social, functional, cognitive and behavioral items in separate patient and informant interviews. In the patient interview, items were rated for severity and impact on self (I-Pat-self). In the informant interview items were rated for severity, impact on patient reported by informant (I-Inf-Pat) and impact on self reported by informant (I-Inf-self). Domain and total scores were computed for all ratings. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess the relation between severity and impact ratings. Collinearity was defined as r>.70. Participants were n=23 community-dwelling ‘probable’ AD subjects (MMSE M=19.9, SD=7.3, range 11-28), with spousal informants. For patient ratings, the correlation between total severity and total I-Pat-self ratings was r=.54. Correlations between domain severity and domain I-Pat-self ratings were r<.50 for the social, functional and cognitive, r=.74 for the behavioral domain. For informant ratings, the correlation between total severity and total I-Inf-Pat was r=.50, and correlations between domain ratings r<.50 for social, functional and cognitive, r=.72 for the behavioral domain. The correlation between total severity and I-Inf-self was r=.78, with all correlations between domain ratings r>.70. Disease severity and social impact were hypothesized as two distinct constructs in AD symptom assessment. CLIMAT data largely support this hypothesis. The determination of the social impact on patients appears to add a valid dimension in the assessment of social, functional and cognitive symptoms, and in turn hold promise in the measurement of clinically meaningful response to treatment. The overlap between severity and social impact in the behavioral domain warrants further 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 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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.246 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicChronic Disease Management Strategies→French-language works237,207→