Review of Outcome Measurement Instruments in Alzheimer's Disease Drug Trials: Psychometric Properties of Global Scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of global outcome measures with strong psychometric properties in Alzheimer's disease (AD) drug trials is encouraged. This article focuses on Clinician Global Impression of Change scales, the Clinical Dementia Rating, and the Global Deterioration Scale to provide (1) a review of psychometric properties, (2) a critique of how these properties are assessed in the literature, and (3) a basis for evaluating, from the standpoint of psychometric properties, the appropriateness of using a given global scale in a drug trial. Reported reliability and validity estimates for the aforementioned scales range from fair to very good, but small sample sizes and/or inappropriate measures of correlation weaken the quality of the evidence. There is also a dearth of published information on responsiveness to change. Researchers planning AD drug trials should consider these issues, along with the interval between test administrations for test-retest reliability, to help select appropriate global outcome measurement instruments.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".