Some psychosocial therapies may reduce depression, aggression, or apathy in people with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Verkaik R, van Weert JCM, Francke AL. The effects of psychosocial methods on depressed, aggressive and apathetic behaviours of people with dementia: a systematic review. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2005;20:301–14.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q Does psychosocial therapy reduce depression, aggression, and apathy in people with dementia? ### ![Graphic][5] Design: Systematic review. ### ![Graphic][6] Data sources: PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL/CCTR, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, INVERT, NIVEL, Cochrane Specialised Register CDCIG, SIGLE, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (September 2002 to February 2003); hand searches of review articles and reference lists. ### ![Graphic][7] Study selection and analysis: Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and crossover trials comparing psychosocial versus control interventions in people with dementia diagnosed according to DSM-III, DSM-IV, or ICD-10 criteria. The psychosocial interventions were: behaviour, psychomotor, and art therapy, supportive psychotherapy, validation/integrated emotion oriented care, multisensory stimulation/snoezelen, simulated presence therapy, reminiscence, gentle care, passivities of daily living (PDL), reality orientation, skills training, and activity or recreational therapy. Data were extracted on age, sex, type of dementia, diagnostic criteria, severity and duration of dementia, type of psychosocial and control … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DInternational%2Bjournal%2Bof%2Bgeriatric%2Bpsychiatry%26rft.stitle%253DInt%2BJ%2BGeriatr%2BPsychiatry%26rft.aulast%253DVerkaik%26rft.auinit1%253DR.%26rft.volume%253D20%26rft.issue%253D4%26rft.spage%253D301%26rft.epage%253D314%26rft.atitle%253DThe%2Beffects%2Bof%2Bpsychosocial%2Bmethods%2Bon%2Bdepressed%252C%2Baggressive%2Band%2Bapathetic%2Bbehaviors%2Bof%2Bpeople%2Bwith%2Bdementia%253A%2Ba%2Bsystematic%2Breview.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1002%252Fgps.1279%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15799081%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/gps.1279&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15799081&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F8%2F4%2F104.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000228734700001&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".