MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393299940 · doi:10.3389/fgwh.2024.1326881

The impact of informant-related characteristics including sex/gender on assessment of Alzheimer's disease symptoms and severity

2024· article· en· W4393299940 on OpenAlexaff
Elise Abken, Maria Teresa Ferretti, Laura Castro‐Aldrete, Antonella Santuccione Chadha, Maria Carmela Tartaglia

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Global Women s Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsOntario Brain InstituteUniversity Health NetworkOccupational Cancer Research CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiseasePsychologyClinical psychologyMedicineGerontologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alzheimer's disease, caregive, sex, gender, Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), clinical trial endpoints Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a debilitating neurological disorder affecting millions of people worldwide.Early and accurate diagnosis of AD is crucial for accessing treatments (including clinical trials), planning for the future, and obtaining necessary services.Unfortunately, AD and other neurodegenerative diseases associated with cognitive impairment or behavioral changes, are frequently misdiagnosed or diagnosed at later stages.Experts recommend a multifaceted approach that integrates performance, informant, and self-report data to properly assess patients with neurodegenerative diseases (1).This approach allows clinicians to assess the presence and severity of cognitive disorders, establish a differential diagnosis, and formulate an effective treatment plan.Caregivers play a pivotal role in recognizing early signs of the disease, such as memory loss and behavioral changes.They provide valuable insights to healthcare providers, assisting in diagnosis and treatment (2).In contrast to conditions where self-reporting is standard, caregiver input is instrumental in AD assessments, especially in clinical trials where disease severity is a critical criterion and endpoint.Integral to an accurate ascertainment of a patient's severity of disease, which is focused on functional abilities, is a dementia rating scale.In the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR), a semi-structured interview format is used to collect detailed information from an informant regarding the patient's ability to function in various domains (3).The CDR (either the global score, from 0 (no impairment) to 3 (severe dementia), or the sum of boxes, CDR-SB) is thought to reflect the impact of neurodegeneration on everyday global function based on six cognitive and behavioral domains: memory, orientation, judgment and problem solving, community affairs, home and hobbies, and personal care.Currently, this is the most widely used scale for assessing severity/staging of AD (4, 5).The CDR-SB is commonly used as the primary endpoint in clinical trials of AD, in addition to several cognitive measures.Given the importance of the CDR, it is imperative to consider the informant's characteristics that may influence scoring.Prior research highlights the significance of caregiver input in diagnosing and classifying AD and other neurodegenerative diseases (2).Psychosocial factors, including cultural background (6), ethnicity (7-9), and sex/

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.364 · 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Global Women s HealthSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207