Clinical Progression on CDR-SB <sup>©</sup> : Progression Free Time at Each 0.5-unit Level in Dominantly Inherited and Sporadic Alzheimer’s Disease Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: CDR-SB is a reliable and clinically meaningful composite for assessing treatment effects in Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials. Small CDR-SB differences at the end of a trial often lead to controversy in deriving clinically meaningful interpretations. METHODS: We estimated progression-free time participants remained at each 0.5-unit CDR-SB increment in dominantly inherited AD (DIAD) and sporadic AD populations, evaluating its potential as an alternative measure of treatment effects. RESULTS: Progression-free time is longer at CDR-SB ≤ 2.0 (1-2 years) and shorter at CDR-SB ≥ 5 (0.33 or less) in the ADNI cohort. The DIAD cohort showed similar but shorter times. Using progression-free time, continuous lecanemab treatment for three years is estimated to delay disease progression by 0.7 years in the sporadic population. DISCUSSION: Progression-free time provides a benchmark for expressing clinical progression and treatment effects and can be applied particularly during open-label extensions and single-arm trials without placebo comparisons.
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 | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".