MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390201158 · doi:10.1002/alz.074493

Diagnosis of Severity of Alzheimer’s Disease from Clinical notes in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System

2023· article· en· W4390201158 on OpenAlexaff
Byron J. Aguilar, Ekaterina Shishova, Xuyang Li, Andrew H. Nguyen, Peter J. Morin, Dan R. Berlowitz, Maureen K. O’Connor, Donald R. Miller, Guneet K. Jasuja, Raymond Zhang, Amir Abbas Tahami Monfared, Quanwu Zhang, Weiming Xia

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVeterans AffairsMedicineDiseaseCohortSeverity of illnessPediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Alzheimer’s disease (AD) typically progresses in three stages: mild, moderate, and severe. Early detection improves patient care related to identification of suitable interventions and end‐of‐life planning. However, AD severity diagnosis is uncommon. The aim of this study is to identify Veterans in various stages of AD using clinical notes in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System. Method Notes containing “Alz*” from fiscal year 2019 were identified then screened for information indicating a clinical diagnosis of probable AD. Screened notes with AD severity keywords (mild, moderate, severe, early, late, advanced) within four words of “Alz*” were considered as a severity diagnosis. Notes containing a single AD severity diagnosis were included in the study. Result 141,816 Veterans with 547,318 notes containing “Alz*” were identified as probable AD cases. Roughly 9% of notes contained at least one severity keyword and 6% of notes contained a single severity keyword. 34,181 notes with a single severity keyword from 14,148 Veterans were included in this study. The cohort comprised of 96% males and 78% identified as White with a mean age of 79. Ten percent of Veterans with an AD note included severity diagnosis. Approximately 19%, 12%, 18%, 20%, 3%, and 28% of severity notes contained mild, moderate, severe, early, late, and advanced, respectively. The mean age for Veterans with a mild, moderate, or severe AD diagnosis increased from 78 to 81. The mean age for early, late, and advanced AD patients increased from 74, 79, and 81, respectively. AD severity diagnosis was found in notes related to primary care (11%), internal medicine (10%), psychiatry (8%), mental health (7%), neurology (6%), geriatric (5%), neuropsychology (1%), and psychology (1%). Conclusion AD severity diagnosis is uncommon. Identification of patients in various stages of AD will lead to a better understanding of transition from one severity to another and facilitate the coordination of services to improve patient care. Specifically, identification of AD patients in the early stage may identify candidates for novel therapeutics focused on delaying AD progression.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→