Enhancing Dementia Care: A Primary Care–Based Memory Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Memory clinics have been promoted as opportunities for improving dementia diagnosis and care. This article describes the implementation of an interdisciplinary memory clinic within primary care in Ontario, Canada, that aims to provide timely access to comprehensive assessment and care and to improve referring physicians' knowledge of the management of dementia through collaborative care and practice-based mentorship. Between July 2006 and September 2009, 246 initial and follow-up assessments were conducted with 151 patients, a high proportion of whom received a new diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (44.4%) or dementia (19.2%). A trial of cholinesterase inhibitors was recommended for almost all patients newly diagnosed with dementia. Management interventions and recommendations included social worker outreach, long-term care planning, home safety or driving assessments, referral to community resources, and periodic follow-up and monitoring. A small proportion of patients (7.8%) were referred to a specialist. Surveyed patients and caregivers were very satisfied with their visit to the clinic. A chart audit conducted by two independent geriatricians indicated agreement with diagnosis and intervention, particularly related to use of specialists. The results indicate that memory clinics within primary care settings can support capacity building to ensure quality assessment and management of dementia at a primary care level.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".