MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994019913 · doi:10.1136/ebn.5.1.21

Training family care givers of people with dementia to think in a more clinical manner decreased depression and the sense of burden

2002· letter· en· W1994019913 on OpenAlexaff
Dorothy Forbes

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2002
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDementiaWeb of scienceDepression (economics)PsychiatryGynecologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hepburn KW, Tornatore J, Center B, et al. Dementia family caregiver training: affecting beliefs about caregiving and caregiver outcomes. J Am Geriatr Soc2001 Apr; 49 : 450 –7 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: Does training family care givers of individuals with dementia to view their role in a more clinical manner reduce adverse events associated with care giving? Randomised (allocation not concealed), blinded {outcome assessor}*, controlled trial with follow up 3 months after the intervention. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 117 family care giver – care receiver dyads, which consisted of primary informal care givers (mean age 77 y, 56% men; 94% were spouses or parents) of relatives with dementia that had not progressed beyond stage 7b of the Functional Assessment Staging (mean age 65 y, 70% women) who were living in community settings (ie, not nursing homes). 94 dyads (80%) were included in the analysis. 72 care givers accompanied by ≥1 family member were allocated to the … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJournal%2Bof%2Bthe%2BAmerican%2BGeriatrics%2BSociety%26rft.stitle%253DJ%2BAm%2BGeriatr%2BSoc%26rft.aulast%253DHepburn%26rft.auinit1%253DK.%2BW.%26rft.volume%253D49%26rft.issue%253D4%26rft.spage%253D450%26rft.epage%253D457%26rft.atitle%253DDementia%2Bfamily%2Bcaregiver%2Btraining%253A%2Baffecting%2Bbeliefs%2Babout%2Bcaregiving%2Band%2Bcaregiver%2Boutcomes.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1046%252Fj.1532-5415.2001.49090.x%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11347790%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=10.1046/j.1532-5415.2001.49090.x&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11347790&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F5%2F1%2F21.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000168331300015&link_type=ISI

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207