Canadian Outcomes Study in Dementia: Study Methods and Patient Characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the methods and patient characteristics of the Canadian Outcomes Study in Dementia (COSID). METHODS: COSID is a 3-year prospective study of dementia patients living in the community at the time of study registration. We assessed patients' cognition, behaviour, and functioning every 6 months, using the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS), the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), and the Functional Autonomy Measurement System (SMAF), respectively. We assessed caregivers, using the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI). Additional information included the Global Deterioration Scale (GDS), patients' driving status, and clinical information including family history, dementia type, concomitant medications, and comorbid conditions. From the patient or caregiver, we collected details of inpatient and outpatient resources used by the patient and (or) caregiver. RESULTS: We enrolled 766 patients from 31 Canadian sites. Overall mean age was 76.8 years, and mean age of onset was 73.1 years. Of the total patients, 98% were white, 54% were women, and 84% were diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. Mean baseline 3MS was 66.5, NPI was 9.5, and SMAF was 18.30. Of these patients, 48% reported a GDS score of 3 (that is, moderate), 16% reported a GDS score of 4 (that is, moderately severe), and the remaining 36% reported a GDS score of 1 or 2 (that is, mild or very mild). At baseline, 83% of patients received cholinesterase inhibitors, 46% received nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, 39% received vitamin E, and 25% received antidepressants. Adult day care and home help were the largest cost factors in this population, with mean monthly costs of $65 and $64, respectively. We found interesting differences in the resources used among geographic regions and care settings. CONCLUSIONS: COSID is already generating valuable information about treatment patterns, outcomes, and resource use in Canadian patients with dementia. As the data mature, it will be possible to build robust models on treatment effectiveness and costs of care.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".