Clinical meaningfulness of Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive subscale change in relation to goal attainment in patients on cholinesterase inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The clinical meaningfulness of Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) subscale change is disputed. We compared 2- to 4-point ADAS-Cog changes with changes in Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) and everyday function across initial ADAS-Cog scores and treatment responses. METHODS: This exploratory analysis evaluated mild-moderate Alzheimer's disease patients treated with donepezil (12 months) or galantamine (8 months). Clinical meaningfulness was defined as concomitant ADAS-Cog and GAS changes of ±3 points and/or functional improvement. RESULTS: Patients with ≥3-point ADAS-Cog improvement significantly improved on GAS but not on standard tests of everyday function. ADAS-Cog "no change" (≤±3 points) was seen with mean GAS improvement. Initial ADAS-Cog improvement made endpoint improvement (ADAS-Cog 3 points and GAS 1 point) more likely (odds ratio = 6.9; 95% confidence interval = 2.5-19.5). In contrast, initial deterioration made endpoint improvement unlikely (0.33; 0.14-0.64). DISCUSSION: ADAS-Cog improvement and no change were each associated with GAS improvement. Initial ADAS-Cog worsening was unlikely to result in later improvement. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN26167328.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".