Determining the impact of psychosis on rates of false‐positive and false‐negative diagnosis in Alzheimer's disease
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The rate of clinical misdiagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and how psychosis impacts that clinical judgment is unclear. Methods Using data from National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center, we compared the clinical and neuropathologic diagnosis in patients with a diagnosis of AD with autopsy and in neuropathology‐confirmed AD cases ( n = 961). We determined the rate of true positives, false positives, and false negatives in patients with and without psychosis. Results A total of 76% received a correct AD diagnosis, 11.9% had a false‐negative diagnosis, and 12.1% had a false‐positive diagnosis of AD. Psychotic patients had a higher rate of false‐negative diagnosis and a lower rate of false‐positive diagnosis of AD compared with nonpsychotic patients. Discussion Patients with psychosis were five times more likely to be misdiagnosed as dementia with Lewy bodies, whereas patients without psychosis were more likely to be falsely diagnosed with AD when vascular pathology is the underlying neuropathologic cause of dementia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 it