Multisensory Stimulation for Elderly With Dementia: A 24-Week Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dementia in the elderly is a common, debilitating condition. Residents in long-term care facilities present with a number of challenging behaviors. Pharmacological management is not always helpful. Alternative approaches are needed. METHODS: Multisensory stimulation (MSS) was developed to address sensory stimulation imbalance. In this pilot 24-week single-blinded, randomized controlled study, the authors examined the effect of MSS when given for 12 weeks in either 1 or 3 sessions per week with a control group. RESULTS: There is a trend for better outcomes as measured by daily observation scales (DOS) or Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) with the increase of sessions of treatment per week. This became statistically significant at weeks 8 (DOS) and 12 (CGI). This difference continued for 12 additional weeks after treatment ended. CONCLUSIONS: MSS may be a useful addition to the care of elderly patients with dementia. A larger double-blind randomized control study is required.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".