Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD) accounts for the majority of dementia cases and leaves clinicians, patients, family members, caregivers, and researchers faced with numerous ethical issues that vary and evolve as a function of disease stage and severity. While the disclosure of a diagnosis of AD dementia is difficult enough, advances in the neurobiology of AD--embodied in the recent revisions to the AD diagnostic guidelines--have translated into an increasing shift toward the diagnosis being made in its pre-dementia stages, when patients have full insight into their prognosis. Genetic issues in AD are significant in the case of rare families with an early onset (before age 65) form of the disease, owing to the presence of deterministic mutations. While genetic testing for the apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene--a risk factor for sporadic AD--is widely debated, it may become necessary in the context of novel disease-modifying drugs. The current symptomatic drugs--cholinesterase inhibitors (CIs) and the NMDA receptor antagonist memantine--are relatively simple to use but their access is limited in many countries by economic considerations and therapeutic nihilism. Although their efficacy is modest, they influence the design of protocols for new drugs since placebo treatment in clinical trials involving patients with established dementia is rarely allowed beyond 3 months. Driving privileges are lost in the moderate stages of dementia, with this decision ideally reached using a standardized assessment algorithm. Physical restraints are still overused in moderate-to-severe stages, but the alternative non-pharmacological therapies and caregiver training programs are not yet fully validated using randomized studies. End-of-life care is slowly moving towards a palliative care approach similar to that for end-stage cancer. There will be new drugs in the near future, some of which will delay progression from prodromal stages to dementia, but their use will require careful stopping rules.
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 | 0.019 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".