Cost consequence analysis of Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate Trial 2 (ADMET 2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:This paper used data from the Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate Trial 2 (NCT02346201) to conduct a planned cost consequence analysis to investigate whether treatment of apathy with methylphenidate is economically attractive.Methods:A total of 167 patients with clinically significant apathy randomized to either methylphenidate or placebo were included. The Resource Utilization in Dementia Lite instrument assessed resource utilization for the past 30 days and the EuroQol five dimension five level questionnaire assessed health utility at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Resources were converted to costs using standard sources and reported in 2021 USD. A repeated measures analysis of variance compared change in costs and utility over time between the treatment and placebo groups. A binary logistic regression was used to assess cost predictors.Results:Costs were not significantly different between groups whether the cost of methylphenidate was excluded (F(2,330) = 0.626, ηp2 = 0.004, p = 0.535) or included (F(2,330) = 0.629, ηp2 = 0.004, p = 0.534). Utility improved with methylphenidate treatment as there was a group by time interaction (F(2,330) = 7.525, ηp2 = 0.044, p < 0.001).Discussion:Results from this study indicated that there was no evidence for a difference in resource utilization costs between methylphenidate and placebo treatment. However, utility improved significantly over the 6-month follow-up period. These results can aid in decision-making to improve quality of life in patients with Alzheimer’s disease while considering the burden on the healthcare system.
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".