MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2547869435 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2016.09.012

Implementation of subjective cognitive decline criteria in research studies

2016· article· en· W2547869435 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Institute on AgingInstituto de Salud Carlos IIISchool of Medicine, New York UniversityFondation pour la Recherche sur AlzheimerEU Joint Programme – Neurodegenerative Disease ResearchAlzheimer NederlandGIESKES-STRIJBIS FONDSUniversité Pierre et Marie CurieAXA Research FundAgence Nationale de la RechercheEuropean Regional Development FundEuropean CommissionYork UniversityNational Institutes of HealthFisher Center for Alzheimer's Research FoundationU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryOperationalizationComparabilityCognitive declineContext (archaeology)CognitionInclusion and exclusion criteriaPsychologyDiseaseInclusion (mineral)MedicineClinical psychologyGerontologyDevelopmental psychologyDementiaPsychiatryAlternative medicinePathologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) manifesting before clinical impairment could serve as a target population for early intervention trials in Alzheimer's disease (AD). A working group, the Subjective Cognitive Decline Initiative (SCD-I), published SCD research criteria in the context of preclinical AD. To successfully apply them, a number of issues regarding assessment and implementation of SCD needed to be addressed. METHODS: Members of the SCD-I met to identify and agree on topics relevant to SCD criteria operationalization in research settings. Initial ideas and recommendations were discussed with other SCD-I working group members and modified accordingly. RESULTS: Topics included SCD inclusion and exclusion criteria, together with the informant's role in defining SCD presence and the impact of demographic factors. DISCUSSION: Recommendations for the operationalization of SCD in differing research settings, with the aim of harmonization of SCD measurement across studies are proposed, to enhance comparability and generalizability across studies.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.163
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.341 · 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