MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312703859 · doi:10.14283/jpad.2022.102

Establishing Clinically Meaningful Change on Outcome Assessments Frequently Used in Trials of Mild Cognitive Impairment Due to Alzheimer's Disease

2022· article· en· W4312703859 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer s Disease · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical Dementia RatingDementiaRating scaleClinical trialClinical Global ImpressionCognitionDiseasePsychologyMedicineAlzheimer's diseasePlaceboPsychiatryInternal medicinePathologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Consensus is lacking on what constitutes a meaningful score change for individual patients on clinical outcome assessments (COAs) that are commonly used in clinical trials of Alzheimer's disease. Such thresholds are one important approach to help contextualize trial results and demonstrate meaningful treatment benefit. OBJECTIVES: To estimate meaningful within-patient change thresholds for the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale - Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog), and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) among participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). DESIGN: Retrospective anchor- and distribution-based analyses of data from the ADC-008 (NCT00000173) study were used to estimate thresholds for meaningful within-patient change on the target measures. SETTING: Analyses were conducted using data from ADC-008 a Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study among participants with the amnestic subtype of MCI, which was conducted by the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS) between March 1999 and January 2004 in the United States and Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Analyses were based on 769 eligible participants who completed the baseline assessment from 69 ADCS sites in the United States and Canada. MEASUREMENTS: The target outcome measures for this analysis included the CDR-SB, the ADAS-Cog, and the MMSE. The anchor measures for this analysis included the Global Deterioration Scale and the MCI-Clinical Global Impression of Change. RESULTS: Focusing on the 12-month time point, within-patient increases of 1-2.5 points in the CDR-SB and increases of 2-5 points on the 11-item ADAS-Cog and 13-item ADAS-Cog, on average, reflect minimal-to-moderate levels of deterioration, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These thresholds may be useful to aid the interpretation of Alzheimer's disease clinical trial data by illustrating meaningful within-patient progression over the course of a clinical trial via supplementary progressor analyses, which may in turn be informative for treatment decisions. Estimates generated via these methods are specifically intended to evaluate within-patient change and are not intended to assess the magnitude and meaningfulness of differences between group-level changes over time.

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.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.223
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.247 · 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