MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810893867 · doi:10.1177/1533317518783278

Sex Differences in the Neuropsychiatric Symptoms of Patients With Alzheimer’s Disease

2018· article· en· W2810893867 on OpenAlexaff
Ye Tao, Matthew E. Peters, Lea T. Drye, Davangere P. Devanand, Jacobo Mintzer, Bruce G. Pollock, Anton P. Porsteinsson, Paul B. Rosenberg, Lon S. Schneider, David Shade, Daniel Weintraub, Jerome A. Yesavage, Constantine G. Lyketsos, Cynthia A. Munro

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Alzheimer s Disease & Other Dementias® · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsDiseaseRating scaleMedicineClinical trialPsychiatryCitalopramAlzheimer's diseaseClinical psychologyPsychologyPediatricsInternal medicineAnxietyAntidepressantDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to describe sex differences in neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPSs) in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). Baseline scores on the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory, Neurobehavioral Rating Scale-Agitation subscale, and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory from patients with AD enrolled in a multicenter trial of citalopram for the treatment of agitation were analyzed. We found not only that patients with AD having agitation were likely to exhibit many other NPSs but also that the women in this study were more likely to exhibit a broader range of NPS than were the men. These results suggest greater heterogeneity in the clinical presentation of women compared to men, and thus in the potential targets for treatment in these patients. Further characterization of sex differences in NPS can inform future efforts aimed at establishing subtypes of patients for whom various treatment approaches will be most appropriate.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations50
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Alzheimer s Disease & Other Dementias®Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207