Improved Utilization of ADAS-Cog Assessment Data Through Item Response Theory Based Pharmacometric Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This work investigates improved utilization of ADAS-cog data (the primary outcome in Alzheimer's disease (AD) trials of mild and moderate AD) by combining pharmacometric modeling and item response theory (IRT). METHODS: A baseline IRT model characterizing the ADAS-cog was built based on data from 2,744 individuals. Pharmacometric methods were used to extend the baseline IRT model to describe longitudinal ADAS-cog scores from an 18-month clinical study with 322 patients. Sensitivity of the ADAS-cog items in different patient populations as well as the power to detect a drug effect in relation to total score based methods were assessed with the IRT based model. RESULTS: IRT analysis was able to describe both total and item level baseline ADAS-cog data. Longitudinal data were also well described. Differences in the information content of the item level components could be quantitatively characterized and ranked for mild cognitively impairment and mild AD populations. Based on clinical trial simulations with a theoretical drug effect, the IRT method demonstrated a significantly higher power to detect drug effect compared to the traditional method of analysis. CONCLUSION: A combined framework of IRT and pharmacometric modeling permits a more effective and precise analysis than total score based methods and therefore increases the value of ADAS-cog data.
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 | 0.093 | 0.206 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".