Evidence-Informed Approach to De-Prescribing of Atypical Antipsychotics (AAP) in the Management of Behavioral Expressions (BE) in Advanced Neurocognitive Disorders (NCD): Results of a Retrospective Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Diagnosis of behaviors in advanced neurocognitive disorders (aNCD) is one of exclusion, and the framework has been laid out in DSM-V. However, clinical assessments in aNCD become increasingly unreliable, and commonly used psychometric tools for clinical assessments lack reliability and validity, thereby making outcomes unreliable. Consequently, the syndromic and symptom management approaches for behaviors in aNCD behaviors have yielded poor results. To address this, the focus has shifted towards understanding the ‘meaning’ of behaviors in aNCD, recognizing them as a ‘mode of communication’. To date, there are no existing frameworks to ascribe ‘meaning’ to behaviors in aNCD. Objectives LuBAIR™ paradigm is the first step in offering such a framework for understanding the ‘purpose’ and ‘meaning’ of behaviors in NCD. The ‘meaning’ ascribed to each behavioral category was used to guide the use of atypical antipsychotics in their management. De-prescribing was attempted on patients who qualified to enter this retrospective study. De-prescribing was defined as successful if individuals were completely withdrawn from AAP and remained off them for 60 days without the re-emergence of behaviors. Methods The data collected on the second occasion, in the successful and failed de-prescribed groups, were compared in this retrospective study. MANOVA, Chi-Square paired t-test statistical analyses were used to detect the differences in the behavioral categories between the two cohorts. Cohen d was used to measure effect size. Results Patients who did not have Mis-Identification and Goal-Directed Expressions were more likely to successfully de-prescribe: X2 (1, N = 40) = 29.119 p < 0.0001 and X2 (1, N = 40) = 32.374, p < 0.0001, respectively. Alternatively, the same behavioral categories were more likely present in patients who failed de-prescribing: MANOVA and paired t-test (p < 0.0001). Atypical antipsychotics, in their role as an antipsychotic and mood stabilizer, may be used to manage Mis-Identification and Goal-Directed Expressions, respectively. Conclusions LuBAIR paradigm has the potential to guide the development of specific behavioral care plans and the use of AAP in managing individual behavioral categories. AAP use can be justified for managing Misidentification and Goal-Directed Expressions. Vocal expressions may warrant the use of AAP, pending further study. The LuBAIR paradigm offers guidance for de-prescribing AAP for all other behavioral categories in the LuBAIR Inventory. This study is also a preliminary step in validating the psychological theories used to support the individual categories. This workshop will educate the participants on the LuBAIR paradigm and its application in developing person-centered interventions for behaviors in a NCD. Disclosure of Interest None Declared
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,027 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».