A comparison of challenging behaviour in an adult group with Down's syndrome and dementia compared with an adult Down's syndrome group without dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This study investigated the frequency and severity of challenging behaviour in adults with Down's syndrome with and without signs of dementia. Care staff were interviewed using the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist‐Community version (M.G. Aman & N.N. Singh, Slosson, East Aurora, NY, 1994), to investigate the frequency and severity of challenging behaviour. Individuals’‘dementia status’ was assessed by using the Dementia Scale for Down's syndrome (Gedye Research and Consulting, Vancouver, 1995). The results showed that the dementia group displayed more frequent and severe forms of challenging behaviour than the nondementia group. The difference in reported levels of challenging behaviour of both groups with the general learning disabilities population was not considered to be clinically significant and levels fell predominantly within the ‘normal range’. The findings of this study suggest that frequent and severe forms of challenging behaviour in adults with Down's syndrome is more likely to be a behavioural symptom associated with the onset of a dementing illness and not due to normal ageing alone.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".