Decentralized clinical trials for medications to reduce the risk of dementia: Consensus report and guidance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recent growth in the functionality and use of technology has prompted an increased interest in the potential for remote or decentralized clinical trials in dementia. There are many potential benefits associated with decentralized medication trials, but we currently lack specific recommendations for their delivery in the dementia field. METHODS: A modified Delphi method engaged an expert panel to develop recommendations for the conduct of decentralized medication trials in dementia prevention. A working group of researchers and clinicians with expertise in dementia trials further refined the recommendations. RESULTS: Overall, the recommendations support the delivery of decentralized trials in dementia prevention provided adequate safety checks and balances are included. A total of 40 recommendations are presented, spanning aspects of decentralized clinical trials, including safety, dispensing, outcome assessment, and data collection. DISCUSSION: These recommendations provide an accessible, pragmatic guide for the design and conduct of remote medication trials for dementia prevention. HIGHLIGHTS: Clinical trials of medication have begun adopting decentralized approaches. Researchers in the field lack guidance on what would be appropriate circumstances and frameworks for what would be appropriate circumstances and frameworks for the use of decentralized trial methods in dementia prevention. The present report provides consensus-based expert recommendations for decentralized clinical trials for dementia prevention.
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 | 0.396 | 0.470 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".