MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901329269 · doi:10.1016/j.trci.2018.09.003

The hidden variables problem in Alzheimer's disease clinical trial design

2018· review· en· W2901329269 on OpenAlexaff
S. Imindu Liyanage, Clarissa Santos, Donald F. Weaver

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia Translational Research & Clinical Interventions · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersMassachusetts MassWildlife Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
KeywordsClinical trialConfoundingDiseaseDementiaMedicineCoachingPerspective (graphical)PsychologyClinical psychologyGerontologyInternal medicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the leading cause of dementia worldwide, Alzheimer's disease has garnered intense academic and clinical interest. Yet, trials in search of a disease-modifying therapy have failed overwhelmingly. We suggest that, in part, this may be attributable to the influence of disruptive variables inherent to the framework of a clinical trial. Specifically, we observe that everyday factors such as diet, education, mental exertion, leisure participation, multilingualism, sleep, trauma, and physical activity, as well as clinical/study parameters including environment, family coaching, concurrent medications, and illnesses may serve as potent confounders, disruptors, or sources of bias to an otherwise significant drug-disease interaction. This perspective briefly summarizes the potential influence of these hidden variables on the outcomes of clinical trials and suggests strategies to abate their impact.

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)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.619
GPT teacher head0.602
Teacher spread0.017 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia Translational Research & Clinical InterventionsSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207