Generating real‐world evidence in Alzheimer's disease: Considerations for establishing a core dataset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ongoing assessment of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) in postapproval studies is important for mapping disease progression and evaluating real-world treatment effectiveness and safety. However, interpreting outcomes in the real world is challenging owing to variation in data collected across centers and specialties and greater heterogeneity of patients compared with trial participants. Here, we share considerations for observational postapproval studies designed to collect harmonized longitudinal data from individuals with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia stage of disease who receive therapies targeting the underlying pathological processes of AD in routine practice. This paper considers key study design parameters, including proposed aims and objectives, study populations, approaches to data collection, and measures of cognition, functional abilities, neuropsychiatric status, quality of life, health economics, safety, and drug utilization. Postapproval studies that capture these considerations will be important to provide standardized data on AD treatment effectiveness and safety in real-world settings.
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 | 0.606 | 0.798 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".