Committee on High‐quality Alzheimer's Disease Studies (CHADS) consensus report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Consensus guidance for the development and identification of high-quality Alzheimer's disease clinical trials is needed for protocol development and conduct of clinical trials. METHODS: An ad hoc consensus committee was convened in conjunction with the Alzheimer's Association to develop consensus recommendations. RESULTS: Consensus was readily reached for the need to provide scientific justification, registration of trials, institutional review board oversight, conflict of interest disclosure, funding source disclosure, defined trial population, recruitment resources, definition of the intervention, specification of trial duration, appropriate payment for participant engagement, risk-benefit disclosure as part of the consent process, and the requirement to disseminate and/or publish trial results even if the study is negative. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus guidance should prove useful for the protocol development and conduct of clinical trials, and may further provide a platform for the development of education materials that may help guide appropriate clinical trial participation decisions for potential trial participants and the general public.
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 | 0.467 | 0.501 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.017 |
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".