Lay and professional expectations of cholinesterase inhibitor treatment in the early stage of Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of the study were to identify, compare and contrast the expectations of key stakeholders regarding cholinesterase inhibitor treatments prescribed to people with Alzheimer's Disease (AD), and to examine those expectations in the light of recent findings regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of this class of drug. Participants were four older women diagnosed with early stage AD, their lay caregivers, their professional healthcare providers, and pharmacists and policy makers, making a total of 23 participants. Semi-structured interviews were performed in a conversational style designed to elicit accounts of expectations of cholinesterase inhibitors in relation to diagnosis and treatment for AD. The interviews were carried out in the participants' own homes, their places of work or by telephone. A five-member, multidisciplinary team taped, transcribed and coded the interviews using qualitative software in order to identify overarching themes. The study found that although the policy makers and physicians harbored more skeptical or negative expectations, the majority of stakeholders expected that people diagnosed with AD would reap beneficial effects through the use of cholinesterase inhibitors. The study concludes that there is still controversy about the use of cholinesterase inhibitors, particularly in terms of their cost-effectiveness. A clear and ethical argument exists in support of attempts to both modify unrealistic patient expectations where they exist, and to enhance the knowledge base of prescribers. Greater concordance between physicians', patients' and caregivers' treatment goals, and appropriate prescription of these agents in line with available research will require more complete patient and caregiver information on the one hand, and potentially a shift in emphasis to more individualized, clinically focused outcomes, on the other.
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 | 0.016 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".