Experiences in early stage Alzheimer's disease: Understanding the paradox of acceptance and denial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A wealth of information about the biomedical aspects of Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most prevalent dementia among people over age 65, stands in counterpoint to the lack of systematic inquiry around the lived experiences of people with AD. Thirteen (four women, nine men) people, recently diagnosed with early stage AD, participated in this 6-month longitudinal study. This paper reports on AD participant's interviews which focussed on their experiences of AD symptoms, relationships with family and friends, and thoughts about the future. The transcribed interviews, analysed using methodological hermeneutics, revealed a constitutive theme of agency versus objectification and explained the paradox of why people with AD use both acceptance and denial when speaking about their experiences. Participants simultaneously acknowledged and resisted aspects of their disease in order to maintain agency in the face of cognitive losses. Acknowledgement was expressed through the themes involving acceptance of the disease and its symptoms, expression of feelings about the disease, and strategies to cope with the symptoms. Resistance was expressed in themes involving denial, minimization, normalization, and reminiscence about achievements and experiences of competence. Longitudinal analyses of the narratives indicated themes held across time. This research contributes to understanding how people live with early stage AD. Living with AD should not be described as either denial or acceptance, but rather as a paradox of understanding that includes both acknowledgement and resistance.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it