MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396499781 · doi:10.1159/000539129

A Decision-Making Algorithm for Remote Digital Assessments of Alzheimer’s Disease

2024· article· en· W4396499781 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurodegenerative Diseases · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéMontreal Heart InstituteUniversité de MontréalConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiseaseComputer scienceDementiaAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Remote digital assessments (RDAs) such as voice recording, video and motor sensors, olfactory, hearing, and vision screenings are now starting to be employed to complement classical biomarker and clinical evidence to identify patients in the early AD stages. Choosing which RDA can be proposed to individual patients is not trivial and often time-consuming. This position paper presents a decision-making algorithm for using RDA during teleconsultations in memory clinic settings. METHOD: The algorithm was developed by an expert panel following the Delphi methodology. RESULTS: The decision-making algorithm is structured as a series of yes-no questions. The resulting questionnaire is freely available online. DISCUSSION: We suggest that the use of screening questionnaires in the context of memory clinics may help accelerating the adoption of RDA in everyday clinical practice.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.365 · 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