MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809588714 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2018.05.003

Use of nonintrusive sensor‐based information and communication technology for real‐world evidence for clinical trials in dementia

2018· article· en· W2809588714 on OpenAlexafffund
Stefan Teipel, Alexandra König, Jesse Hoey, Jeffrey Kaye, Frank Krüger, Julie M. Robillard, Thomas Kirste, Claudio Babiloni

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Waterloo
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungNational Institute on AgingDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionAGE-WELLConsortium canadien en neurodégénérescence associée au vieillissementAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsWearable computerDementiaClinical trialFunction (biology)Wearable technologyCognitionComputer scienceQuality (philosophy)Risk analysis (engineering)Human–computer interactionMedicineEmbedded systemPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive function is an important end point of treatments in dementia clinical trials. Measuring cognitive function by standardized tests, however, is biased toward highly constrained environments (such as hospitals) in selected samples. Patient-powered real-world evidence using information and communication technology devices, including environmental and wearable sensors, may help to overcome these limitations. This position paper describes current and novel information and communication technology devices and algorithms to monitor behavior and function in people with prodromal and manifest stages of dementia continuously, and discusses clinical, technological, ethical, regulatory, and user-centered requirements for collecting real-world evidence in future randomized controlled trials. Challenges of data safety, quality, and privacy and regulatory requirements need to be addressed by future smart sensor technologies. When these requirements are satisfied, these technologies will provide access to truly user relevant outcomes and broader cohorts of participants than currently sampled in clinical trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.321
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.488
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.321
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3210.488
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.008
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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 head0.313
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations68
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207