MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162666828 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2009.09.004

Dependence as a unifying construct in defining Alzheimer's disease severity

2010· review· en· W2162666828 on OpenAlexaff
Trent McLaughlin, Howard Feldman, Howard Fillit, Mary Sano, Frederick A. Schmitt, Paul Aisen, Christopher Leibman, Lisa Mucha, J. Michael Ryan, Sean D. Sullivan, Eldon Spackman, Peter J. Neumann, Joshua T. Cohen, Yaakov Stern

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEisaiSanofiPfizerForest LaboratoriesElanNational Institute on AgingBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)AutonomyConstruct (python library)CognitionPsychologyDiseaseCognitive psychologyFunction (biology)Cognitive scienceMedicineComputer scienceNeuroscienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reviews measures of Alzheimer's disease (AD) progression in relation to patient dependence and offers a unifying conceptual framework for dependence in AD. Clinicians typically characterize AD by symptomatic impairments in three domains: cognition, function, and behavior. From a patient's perspective, changes in these domains, individually and in concert, ultimately lead to increased dependence and loss of autonomy. Examples of dependence in AD range from a need for reminders (early AD) to requiring safety supervision and assistance with basic functions (late AD). Published literature has focused on the clinical domains as somewhat separate constructs and has given limited attention to the concept of patient dependence as a descriptor of AD progression. This article presents the concept of dependence on others for care needs as a potential method for translating the effect of changes in cognition, function, and behavior into a more holistic, transparent description of AD progression.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations85
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207