Review: pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions improve outcomes in patients with dementia and their caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Doody RS, Stevens JC, Beck C, et al. Practice parameter: management of dementia (an evidence-based review). Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology2001 May 8; 56 : 1154 –66 [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] QUESTION: Do pharmacological, educational, or other non-pharmacological interventions improve outcomes in patients with dementia or their caregivers? Studies were identified to July 2000 by searching Medline, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, CINAHL, Current Contents , Psychological Abstracts, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane databases using search terms including Alzheimer's disease (AD), vascular or multi-infarct dementia, dementia with associated parkinsonian disorder, progressive supranuclear palsy, frontotemporal dementia, and senile dementia. Additional search terms were question specific. Bibliographies of relevant papers were also reviewed. Studies were selected if they were randomised controlled trials published in any language or other types of studies published in English, and if they included >20 participants. Data were extracted on study quality, participant characteristics, interventions, outcome measures, and results. 380 … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DNeurology%26rft.stitle%253DNeurology%26rft.aulast%253DDoody%26rft.auinit1%253DR.%2BS.%26rft.volume%253D56%26rft.issue%253D9%26rft.spage%253D1154%26rft.epage%253D1166%26rft.atitle%253DPractice%2Bparameter%253A%2BManagement%2Bof%2Bdementia%2B%2528an%2Bevidence-based%2Breview%2529%253A%2BReport%2Bof%2Bthe%2BQuality%2BStandards%2BSubcommittee%2Bof%2Bthe%2BAmerican%2BAcademy%2Bof%2BNeurology%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1212%252FWNL.56.9.1154%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11342679%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/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=neurology&resid=56/9/1154&atom=%2Febnurs%2F5%2F1%2F20.atom
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Evidence-Based Nursing structured abstract and commentary conveying the clinical bottom line of a dementia practice-parameter review; the object is the clinical answer, not how syntheses are done.
The letter reviews clinical dementia interventions and does not study evidence-synthesis methods.
Evidence-Based Nursing abstract of a clinical dementia practice-parameter review for patient care.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".