A case–control study regarding relative factors for behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia at a <scp>C</scp>anadian regional long‐term extended care facility: a preliminary report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) are prevalent and have an impact on the care of persons with dementia. Previous studies regarding predisposing factors have included pharmacotherapy, but other factors may not have been sufficiently studied. We hypothesized that psychotropic medications, past history, comorbid psychiatric disorders and other factors may be relevant factors related to BPSD. METHODS: Data were collected from patients' medical charts at an extended care facility over a 2-year period from 1 May 2008 to 30 April 2010. Information obtained included the presence of BPSD, gender, age, marital status, past history, comorbid psychiatric disorder and medication use. Patients were divided into two groups: a group with BPSD (n = 29) and a group without BPSD (n = 10). A binomial logistic regression analysis was performed for the above factors. RESULTS: Comorbid major depression was linked to BPSD (odds ratio = 12.57, 95% confidence interval: 1.31-120.74) as well as to the use of antidepressants (odds ratio = 6.49, 95% confidence interval: 1.02-41.25). There was a trend towards statistical significance in the relationship between greater use of antidepressants for the patients with comorbid major depression and the presence of BPSD. Past history of depression (Fisher's exact test; P = 0.03) and cerebral vascular accident (degrees of freedom = 1, χ(2) = 4.44, P = 0.04) were linked to the presence of BPSD and comorbid major depression. CONCLUSION: Accurate evaluation and treatment of comorbid major depression may affect BPSD. In order to reduce the burden of BPSD on patients and caregivers, there should be a careful and thoughtful diagnosis of comorbid major depression in patients with dementia.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".