MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969771740 · doi:10.1159/000051279

Innovative Dementia Care: Functional Status over Time of Persons with Alzheimer Disease in a Residential Care Centre Compared to Special Care Units

2001· article· en· W1969771740 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sharon Warren, Wonita Janzen, Corinna Andiel-Hett, Lili Liu, H. Robert McKim, Corinne Schalm

Bibliographic record

VenueDementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaGerontologyMedicineDiseaseAlzheimer's diseaseQuality of life (healthcare)Continuing careCognitionResidential careLong-term careActivities of daily livingPsychiatryNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Residential care centres (RCCs) for persons with Alzheimer disease are increasing worldwide, but there are few studies that compare the functional outcomes of RCC residents to residents of other types of continuing care settings. This study compared residents of the first Canadian RCC on physical, cognitive, behavioural and emotional functioning 6, 12 and 18 months after admission to residents of special care units (SCUs) operated by the same continuing care provider. SCU residents were initially functioning lower than RCC residents on most outcome measures and these differences persisted over time. Resident functioning declined over time regardless of care setting and, when the initial status was controlled for, the rates of decline were similar. However, RCC residents experienced greater independence/freedom of choice, fewer physical or psychotropic medication restraints and were more active, which may have enhanced their quality of life.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations35
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDementia and Geriatric Cognitive DisordersSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207