Effectiveness of Interventions Designed to Modify and Maintain Perceptual Abilities in People With Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An evidence-based review was undertaken to answer the question, "What is the evidence for the effect of interventions designed to modify and maintain perceptual abilities on the occupational performance of people with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias?" A systematic search of electronic databases and application of inclusion and exclusion criteria guided the selection of 31 articles. Each article was critically appraised, and the evidence was synthesized. Some interventions use remaining perceptual abilities to enable people to find their way in a facility and decrease attempts at exiting. Preliminary evidence has supported use of visual stimulation and barriers. We found some evidence for the use of auditory stimuli and group therapy that aim to change perceptual abilities. Research with high-level evidence is required to validate these findings. Evidence on the benefits of Snoezelen is not conclusive for occupational performance outcomes; further research to justify its use as an occupational therapy intervention may be warranted.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".