Cognitive stimulation therapy improves cognition and quality of life in older people with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spector A, Thorgrimsen L, Woods B, et al. Efficacy of an evidence-based cognitive stimulation therapy programme for people with dementia: randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2003;183:248–54.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q Does cognitive stimulation therapy improve cognition and quality of life in older people with dementia? ### ![Graphic][3]</img> Design: Randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][4]</img> Allocation: Unconcealed. ### ![Graphic][5]</img> Blinding: Single (outcome assessors blinded). ### ![Graphic][6]</img> Follow up period: Seven weeks. ### ![Graphic][7]</img> Setting: Five day centres and 18 residential homes in London and Hertfordshire, UK; time period not stated. ### ![Graphic][8]</img> Patients: 201 people (158 women and 43 men) diagnosed with dementia according to DSM-IV criteria. Main inclusion criteria were: scoring between 10 and 24 on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and ability to communicate and understand communication (score of 1 or 0 for questions 12 and 13 of the Clifton Assessment Procedures for the Elderly-Behaviour Rating Scale); ability to see and hear well enough to participate; having no major physical illness or disability, or diagnosed learning disability. Mean age of participants was 85.3 years. ### ![Graphic][9]</img> Intervention: Participants receiving cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) (115 people) took part in twice weekly group sessions, of … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DThe%2BBritish%2BJournal%2Bof%2BPsychiatry%26rft.stitle%253DBr.%2BJ.%2BPsychiatry%26rft.aulast%253DSPECTOR%26rft.auinit1%253DA.%26rft.volume%253D183%26rft.issue%253D3%26rft.spage%253D248%26rft.epage%253D254%26rft.atitle%253DEfficacy%2Bof%2Ban%2Bevidence-based%2Bcognitive%2Bstimulation%2Btherapy%2Bprogramme%2Bfor%2Bpeople%2Bwith%2Bdementia%253A%2BRandomised%2Bcontrolled%2Btrial%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1192%252Fbjp.183.3.248%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12948999%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/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bjprcpsych&resid=183/3/248&atom=%2Febmental%2F7%2F1%2F19.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".