P2‐260: Misplacing objects in mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: A descriptive analysis from the video‐imaging synthesis of treating Alzheimer's disease clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Misplacing objects is a commonly reported symptom of Alzheimer's disease. Even though misplacing is often described as a warning sign of dementia, there is little systematic description of this symptom. We report on patient and carer descriptions of misplacing. This is a secondary, qualitative analysis of video-recorded, semi-structured, goal setting and attainment interviews with 130 community-dwelling patients with mild-to-moderate AD (mean age = 77+/- 7.7; 63% women; 67% mild AD) who participated in the Video-Imaging Synthesis of Treating Alzheimer's Disease (VISTA) study; a 4-month, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of galantamine [CMAJ 2006;174:1099–1105; doi:10.1503/cmaj.051432]. Interviews were coded and analyses using framework analysis to capture and summarize patient/carer descriptions of the misplacement of objects. Incidents of misplacing objects were described for 103/130 of the study patients, 46 of whom established treatment goals to track this problem. Two types of misplacing were indentified: forgetting where something had recently been placed (99/103 patients, 96%), and; placing an object in other than its habitual or “correct” place – e.g. putting the dishes under the sink, where they do not belong (31/103, 30%). Most people (86/99) who misplaced a recent item described forgetting where they set down an object. Other problems included being unable to recall the location of an item that was purposefully put away (22/99), including 10 patients who purposefully concealed or hid objects from others. Of the people who put objects in incorrect places, most often this referred to objects from the kitchen. Patients with mild-moderate Alzheimer's disease who took part in the VISTA study evinced two distinct types of misplacing objects. Most could not recall where an item was set down or put away. A smaller group had misplaced objects in inappropriate / unusual places. These simple descriptors can aid disease recognition, and are candidate targets for treatment.
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 | 0.017 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".