Predictors of Patient Dependence in Mild-to-Moderate Alzheimer's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient dependence has rarely been studied in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD). OBJECTIVE: To identify factors which predict patient dependence in mild-to-moderate AD. METHODS: We studied 398 non-institutionalized AD patients (234 females) of the ongoing Prospective Registry on Dementia (PRODEM) in Austria. The Dependence Scale (DS) was used to assess patient dependence. Patient assessment comprised functional abilities, neuropsychiatric symptoms and cognitive functions. A multiple linear regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of patient dependence. RESULTS: AD patients were mildly-to-moderately impaired (mean scores and SDs were: CDR 0.84 ± 0.43; DAD 74.4 ± 23.3, MMSE = 22.5 ± 3.6). Psychopathology and caregiver burden were in the low range (mean NPI score 13.2, range 0 to 98; mean ZBI score 18, range 0-64). Seventy five percent of patients were classified as having a mild level of patient dependence (DS sum score 0 to 6). Patient dependence correlated significantly and positively with age, functional measures, psychopathology and depression, disease duration, and caregiver burden. Significant negative, but low correlations were found between patient dependence, cognitive variables, and global cognition. Activities of daily living, patient age, and disease severity accounted for 63% of variance in patient dependence, whereas cognitive variables accounted for only 11%. CONCLUSION: Dependence in this cohort was mainly related to age and functional impairment, and less so to cognitive and neuropsychiatric variables. This differs from studies investigating patients in more advanced disease stages which found abnormal behavior and impairments of cognition as main predictors of patient dependence.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".