MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096211320 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2011.05.445

P1‐166: Assessing treatment responsiveness of anti‐dementia drugs with the SymptomGuide™

2011· article· en· W2096211320 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kenneth Rockwood, Arnold Mitnitski, An Zeng, Laura Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychiatric care and mental health services
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpouseDementiaCognitionActivities of daily livingMedicineScale (ratio)PsychologyGerontologyPhysical therapyClinical psychologyPsychiatryInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evaluation of individual patients’ treatment responses can be complicated. This reflects both the high dimensionality of dementia (e.g. impairments in cognition, function, behaviour) and that patients show different response profiles. Individualized approaches such as Goal Attainment Scaling responsively capture patient/caregiver preferences, but can be infeasible for routine use. The SymptomGuide (SG™) was developed to allow feasible, routine individualization. Patients/caregivers can select from 10-12 descriptions of 70 symptoms, and track changes in their profiles. SG™ scores reflect change from baseline, summarizing the number of goals set, their weights and the degree of change. Here, we compare the responsiveness (sensitivity to change) of SG™ scores to other clinical measures. SG™ profiles were generated for Capital Health Memory Clinic patients in Halifax, Canada. Responsiveness of the SG™, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Physical Self-Maintenance Scale (PSMS), Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) scale and Global Deterioration Scale (GDS) were compared using standardized response means (SRM) and relative efficiency (RE) scores. From 2007-2010, profiles were recorded for 335 patients treated by one clinic physician (KR). No patient declined participation. Their mean age (SD) was 77.6 (11.2) years; 188 (56.1%) were women; most (96.4%) lived with their spouse, family, or friend. Half had more than one clinic visit, allowing responsiveness to be calculated. The 10 most common symptoms were from the Executive Function and Cognition domains. Recent Memory and Verbal Repetition were each targeted in 69% or 58% of patients respectively. The SG™, but not MMSE showed clinically detectable change (SG™: Cohen's d = 0.34, MMSE: Cohen's d = 0.11) respectively up to 8 months. By 14 months only the SG™ showed significant change (Cohen's d = 0.44). By 24 months, statistically significant, clinically detectable, mild deterioration was seen on average. The 8 month REs were 8.22 for the SG™; 0.64 for MMSE; 0.02 for IADL; 0.99 for PSMS. Most SG™ worsening was seen with cognitive and behavioural symptoms. The SG™ and MMSE were the most responsive measures used in routine clinical evaluation. The MMSE reflects cognitive change. The SG™ targets the most troublesome symptoms experienced by each patient, providing a more clinically recognizable picture of how patients’ daily lives have changed.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicPsychiatric care and mental health servicesFrench-language works237,207