Patients’ expressions of awareness of memory problems in early stage Alzheimer’s disease reflected varying combinations of self maintaining and self adjusting styles of responding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clare L. Managing threats to self: awareness in early stage Alzheimer’s disease. Soc Sci Med 2003;57:1017–29.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q What is the nature of patient awareness of memory changes in early stage Alzheimer’s disease (AD)? Qualitative interview study using interpretive phenomenological analysis. A memory clinic in a large university hospital in the UK. 12 English speaking patients who were 57–83 years of age (mean age 71 y, 75% men), had a medical diagnosis of AD of minimal severity (Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] score ⩾18 out of 30), were living with a partner or caregiver willing to participate, and were capable of providing informed consent. Patients and their spouses participated separately in 2 indepth interviews, 3 months apart. Topics included previous experiences, views of self, coping styles, recognition and impact of memory changes, contact with healthcare services, and views of the future. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analysed using an interpretive phenomenological approach. Participant’s accounts of their awareness of memory changes resulted in a … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DSocial%2Bscience%2B%2526%2Bmedicine%26rft.stitle%253DSoc%2BSci%2BMed%26rft.aulast%253DClare%26rft.auinit1%253DL.%26rft.volume%253D57%26rft.issue%253D6%26rft.spage%253D1017%26rft.epage%253D1029%26rft.atitle%253DManaging%2Bthreats%2Bto%2Bself%253A%2Bawareness%2Bin%2Bearly%2Bstage%2BAlzheimer%2527s%2Bdisease.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252FS0277-9536%252802%252900476-8%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12878102%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00476-8&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12878102&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F7%2F3%2F96.1.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000184592500006&link_type=ISI
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".