The measuring, meaning and importance of activities of daily living (ADLs) as an outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dementia is defined as global cognitive impairment that interferes with function; however, function has been less well measured than cognition in anti-dementia drug trials. In the modern era of anti-dementia clinical trials, measurement of function has improved by differentiating between the aspects of function that have been impaired--for example, impaired initiative versus ineffective performance, as is evaluated by the Disability Assessment for Dementia. Obstacles remain, including how best to distinguish the concepts of functional impairment and disability, how broad to make the range of functional impairment (e.g. whether it should include impaired performance of hobbies, or withdrawal from leisure activities) to individualize assessment, and to distinguish cognitive from non-cognitive causes of impaired function. Even though it appears that improved function is commonly related to improved executive function, and that the latter, more than other aspects of improved cognition, is the effect most prized by patients, families and physicians, functional assessment measures are often less sensitive to change than other outcome measures. How best to improve sensitivity to change of functional measurements is controversial, but it is necessary to do so in order to evaluate the full effects of treatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".