The Clinician's Interview‐Based Impression of Change (Plus caregiver input) and goal attainment in two dementia drug trials: Clinical meaningfulness and the initial treatment response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change Plus caregiver input (CIBIC-Plus) has been widely used in dementia drug trials to evaluate cognition, behavior, and function. New trials of symptomatic drugs forecast renewed interest in this measure. METHODS: To test its clinical meaningfulness, we examined how CIBIC-Plus performed in two cholinesterase inhibitor trials compared to goal attainment scaling Scale (GAS) scores, a patient-reported outcome measure. RESULTS: Net goal attainment was seen for all but one GAS domains in subjects who improved on the CIBIC-Plus. Subjects who improved initially on CIBIC-Plus scores were likely to remain improved across all other outcomes for each trial's duration, except for Disability Assessment for Dementia scores. DISCUSSION: The initial response to treatment, as assessed by CIBIC-Plus, remained stable for most outcome measures. Even small CIBIC-Plus improvement changes are associated with clinically meaningful change as assessed by GAS. Other tests detect decline better than improvement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.056 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".