Relationship of psychosis to aggression, apathy and function in dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychosis has been associated with aggression in dementia, but the nature of this relationship has been unclear. There has been very little research into the relations between apathy and functional status to psychosis in dementia. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between psychosis and aggression, apathy, and functional status in outpatients with dementia. METHODS: The presence of psychosis was assessed by clinical interview and two scales: the Neuropsychiatric Inventory and the Columbia University Scale for Psychopathology in Alzheimer's Disease. The maximum likelihood estimation technique was used to determine the best estimate of the presence of psychosis. Aggression, apathy, and functional status (activities of daily living: ADLs) were measured using structured instruments. RESULTS: Sixty-one subjects were included. The CUSPAD and NPI provided low false positive and negative rates. ANCOVA analyses showed that psychosis was significantly associated with aggression, even when controlling for apathy, depression, and ADLs. Psychosis was related to apathy only when depression was controlled for. Hallucinations were related to impaired basic ADLs, even when depression and apathy were controlled for. CONCLUSIONS: Relationships were found between psychotic symptoms in dementia and aggression as well as apathy and impaired functional status. These relationships suggest pathophysiologic mechanisms and have possible treatment implications.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".