Relationship of the revised anticholinergic drug scale with cultured cell‐based serum anticholinergic activity and cognitive measures in older adults with mild cognitive impairment or remitted depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Anticholinergic Drug Scale (ADS) is a commonly used measure of anticholinergic exposure. This study describes an expanded and revised version of the ADS (rADS) and its relationship with cultured cell-based serum anticholinergic activity (cSAA) and cognitive measures. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 60 years and older with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), remitted major depressive disorder (rMDD), or both, participate in the Prevention of Alzheimer's Dementia with Cognitive Remediation plus Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (PACt-MD) study. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional investigation of data from the PACt-MD study. MEASURES: The rADS includes ratings for 1047 distinct products, about twice as many as the originally published scale; previously published ratings were revised for 40 drugs. Total rADS scores were calculated as sums of ratings of all drugs taken by participants; cSAA was measured in the participants' sera; cognitive performance included measures of executive function, language, processing speed, verbal memory, visuospatial memory, working memory, and an overall composite score. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The relationship between rADS total scores and cSAA was examined using a Spearman rank correlation coefficient. Relationships between rADS total scores and cognitive performance measures were explored in multivariable linear regression models. RESULTS: The sample included 310 participants (mean [standard deviation] age: 72 (6) years; 61.6% were women, and 81.6% had MCI [with or without rMDD]). Total rADS scores were positively correlated with cSAA (Spearman's correlation coefficient: 0.178, p = 0.0016). Total rADS scores were not significantly associated with cognitive performance. CONCLUSIONS: The revised scale is recommended as a replacement for the original ADS since it includes ratings for more drugs and was significantly, albeit weakly, associated with cSAA, similar to previous findings using the original ADS.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".