Effect of disease related biases on the subjective assessment of social functioning in Alzheimer's disease and schizophrenia patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Questionnaires are the current hallmark for quantifying social functioning in human clinical research. In this study, we compared self- and proxy-rated (caregiver and researcher) assessments of social functioning in Schizophrenia (SZ) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients and evaluated if the discrepancy between the two assessments is mediated by disease-related factors such as symptom severity. METHODS: We selected five items from the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS) to assess social functioning in 53 AD and 61 SZ patients. Caregiver- and researcher-rated assessments of social functioning were used to calculate the discrepancies between self-rated and proxy-rated assessments. Furthermore, we used the number of communication events via smartphones to compare the questionnaire outcomes with an objective measure of social behaviour. RESULTS: WHODAS results revealed that both AD (p < 0.001) and SZ (p < 0.004) patients significantly overestimate their social functioning relative to the assessment of their caregivers and/or researchers. This overestimation is mediated by the severity of cognitive impairments (MMSE; p = 0.019) in AD, and negative symptoms (PANSS; p = 0.028) in SZ. Subsequently, we showed that the proxy scores correlated more strongly with the smartphone communication events of the patient when compared to the patient-rated questionnaire scores (self; p = 0.076, caregiver; p < 0.001, researcher-rated; p = 0.046). CONCLUSION: Here we show that the observed overestimation of WHODAS social functioning scores in AD and SZ patients is partly driven by disease-related biases such as cognitive impairments and negative symptoms, respectively. Therefore, we postulate the development and implementation of objective measures of social functioning that may be less susceptible to such biases.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".