MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7117238483 · doi:10.1002/alz70857_098603

Informant Effect on Functional Activities Questionnaire scores in the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set

2025· article· en· W7117238483 on OpenAlexaffabout
Juan‐Camilo Vargas‐González, Martin Ingelsson, David F. Tang‐Wai, Carmela M. Tartaglia

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)Center (category theory)Activities of daily livingData set

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ) is one of the most frequently used functionality assessments in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). It is an informant-based assessment wherein informants are asked to rate daily instrumental activities performance in the patient. We have found that informant characteristics influence the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) in the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set (NACC-UDS). We aimed to evaluate informant characteristics' effect on the FAQ in patients with mild cognitive impairment or dementia due to AD participating in the NACC-UDS. METHOD: We included all participants from the NACC-UDS that had AD as the principal diagnosis, and the Mini-Mental State Examination or Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores, informant characteristics, CDR global score (CDR-GS) and the FAQ score. We performed a conditional growth model using multilevel linear regression analysis. RESULT: We included 19863 participants, totalling 45596 visits with a median of 2 (1-4) visits. The patient's age at the initial visit was 74.1±9.4 years and 53.8% were females. Informants were 66.2±13.2 years, 69.2% were females, and the relationship was 61.0% spouse or partner, 26.7% children and 12.3% other. The FAQ scores were affected by informant characteristics. The FAQ scores were 0.48 (CI 95%:0.31 to 0.65) higher with female informants, 2.04 (CI 95%: 1.79 to 2.28) higher when informants were children, and 0.30 (CI 95%: 0.01 to 0.60) higher when informants were other family members, both compared with spouses or partners. The frequency of visits was associated with a FAQ score 0.57 lower (CI 95%:-0.89 to -0.26) when visiting daily, 1.54 lower (CI 95%:-1.78 to -1.29) when visiting at least once per week, and 2.50 lower (CI 95%:-2.80 to -2.20) when visiting less than once a week compared with living with the patient. As expected, FAQ scores increased with lower Z-standardized cognitive scores. CONCLUSION: We found that the FAQ scores are modified by informant characteristics in the NACC-UDS patients with AD diagnosis. These results are clinically relevant because FAQ is often used to evaluate the severity of AD impact on instrumental activities of daily and monitor the functional decline in AD.

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)0.074
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.139
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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0740.139
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.301 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→