MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071246328 · doi:10.1136/ebn.7.3.96

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

2004· letter· en· W2071246328 on OpenAlexaff
Gertrude Cetinski

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2004
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsOntario Clinical Oncology Group
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeb of sciencePsychologyMedicineDiseasePsychiatryGynecologyClinical psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207