Tense Prescriptions? Alzheimer Medications and the Anthropology of Uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses the two major groups of Alzheimer medications, which are hotly debated in the specialized literature because of their doubtful efficacy. Examining this issue under the rubric of an ;anthropology of uncertainty,' this article seeks to address the question: how do doctors prescribe medications given tensions created by uncertainty? A partial answer is drawn from research conducted in Brazil with local psychogeriatricians, which has documented a high degree of certainty regarding Alzheimer drugs and their benefits. I argue that one reason for this certainty is that ;efficacy' has become increasingly non-specific in Alzheimer's disease through the broadening of outcome measures in clinical trials. While such measures previously focused on cognitive symptoms, they now encompass concepts such as functionality, quality of life and activities of daily living. The certainty of the Brazilian psychogeriatricians is further buttressed by three interacting elements: (i) the influence of the pharmaceutical industry; (ii) long-standing arguments for including non-cognitive symptoms in dementia care and research; and (iii) a specific discourse found in geriatrics and gerontology, which recognizes ;the person beyond cognition.'
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".