MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068810522 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2012.05.1188

O3‐08‐06: The COACH: A real‐world efficacy study

2012· article· en· W2068810522 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stephen Czarnuch, Alex Mihailidis

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActivities of daily livingOverhead (engineering)DementiaSoftware deploymentTask (project management)Computer scienceIndependent livingQuality of life (healthcare)Tracking (education)PsychologyApplied psychologyDiseasePhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineGerontologyPhysical therapyEngineeringNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Globally the number of people living with Alzheimer's disease (AD) is expected to continue to rise. AD and other forms of dementia negatively affect quality of life; particularly when activities of daily living (ADL) become challenging or even impossible to complete. Intelligent assistive technologies (AT) pose one possible solution to ease the burden associated with ADL support, but few AT ever undergo real-world trials leading to low user acceptance and adoption. The COACH is an intelligent computer-based AT that has been shown in supervised clinical trials to support older adults with dementia through the ADL of hand washing by emulating caregiver guidance. An overhead camera tracks the user and communicates assistance - using audio and video prompts - when needed. This study presents the results of an efficacy study of the COACH in a real-world, community-based deployment. The COACH has been installed in a washroom at the Toronto Memory Program, a multidisciplinary, community based, medical facility in Toronto, Canada, specializing in the diagnosis and treatment of Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. The COACH is running in an unsupervised state, interacting with users when the task is not progressing. Video, currently being collected from the overhead camera, will be manually annotated to determine the system's efficacy. Data will be collected from approximately 300 study participants over a six month period from December 2011 to May 2012. The efficacy of the COACH will be presented within four categories: 1) tracking accuracy -the system's ability to track multiple users without user-specific calibration; 2) decision-making - how well the system makes decisions under sensor uncertainty; 3) prompt effectiveness - the system's ability to stimulate users to resume progress in the task after stopping; and 4) technical system challenges - potential hardware and software failures. Based on preliminary data anticipated results suggest that methods of tracking multiple users will need further development and decision making policies need to be more robust. Findings will be discussed toward the translation of the COACH beyond a device shown effective in clinical trials into an intelligent assistive technology that supports older adults with dementia in their homes.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.303 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207