MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7098035623

Special Geriatric Psychiatry Section Canadian Outcomes Study in Dementia: Study Methods and Patient Characteristics

2015· article· en· W7098035623 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaTelephone interviewOutpatient clinicConcomitantAutonomyProspective cohort study
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methods: COSID is a 3-year prospective study of dementia patients living in the community at the time of study registration. We assessed patients ’ cognition, behaviour, and functioning every 6 months, using the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS), the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), and the Functional Autonomy Measurement System (SMAF), respectively. We assessed caregivers, using the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI). Additional information included the Global Deterioration Scale (GDS), patients ’ driving status, and clinical information including family history, dementia type, concomitant medications, and comorbid conditions. From the patient or caregiver, we collected details of inpatient and outpatient resources used by the patient and (or) caregiver. Results: We enrolled 766 patients from 31 Canadian sites. Overall mean age was 76.8 years, and mean age of onset was 73.1 years. Of the total patients, 98 % were white, 54 % were women, and 84 % were diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. Mean baseline 3MS was 66.5, NPI was 9.5, and SMAF was 18.30. Of these patients, 48 % reported a GDS score of 3 (that is, moderate), 16% reported a GDS score of 4 (that is, moderately severe), and the remaining 36 % reported a GDS score of 1 or 2 (that is, mild or very mild). At baseline, 83 % of patients received cholinesterase

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.009
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→