MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076752368 · doi:10.1017/s1041610200006426

Burden in Caregivers of Cognitively Impaired Older Adults Living in the Community: Methodological Issues and Determinants

2000· review· en· W2076752368 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Psychogeriatrics · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityUniversity of WaterlooLakehead Psychiatric HospitalVeterans Affairs CanadaDalhousie UniversityGrand River Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaregiver burdenGerontologyPsychologyCognitionDementiaClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Considerable burden is reported by informal caregivers of older individuals with cognitive impairment. Significant progress in the understanding of determinants of this burden has been achieved. However, further progress could be attained if we considered important methodological issues that may have limited our understanding of caregiver burden. These issues include subgroups of care recipients and caregivers, measurement issues, research design, and statistical techniques. Fifty-three studies published between 1980 and 1997 (inclusive) that focused on caregiver burden were abstracted to determine the extent to which the methodological issues discussed above were considered. Overall, we found considerable variability among the studies surveyed. Further understanding of the caregiving process and reductions in caregiver burden will depend on the attention to methodological issues and understanding of burden across the whole caregiving career.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.761

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.349 · 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