MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082397088 · doi:10.3928/0098-9134-20021001-09

Concept of pre-Death Restlessness in Dementia

2002· article· en· W2082397088 on OpenAlexaff
Beverley M Wilden, Nancy E. Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gerontological Nursing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsRoyal Jubilee Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaDistressPsychological interventionMedicinePalliative careSevere dementiaVascular dementiaPsychiatryPlace of deathPsychologyNursingDiseaseClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The circumstances surrounding the deaths of 23 patients on a behavior stabilization unit during a 1-year period were examined. The death rate was more than double that of previous years, and raised concern for the staff. The majority of deaths (n = 17) occurred within 2 months of admission to the unit, and 16 of the patients who died had a diagnosis of vascular or mixed dementia. The presenting behaviors for these patients may be similar to those of pre-death restlessness, a condition that may affect individuals in their last hours or days of life. No literature can be found linking pre-death restlessness with end-stage vascular dementia. The memory of how a person dies can linger for family and loved ones (Enck, 1992). Distress caused by behaviors with end-stage dementia may be alleviated if the symptoms of pre-death restlessness are recognized. It may be a relief for family and staff to know the patient is indeed dying, rather than exhibiting new and seemingly uncontrollable behaviors. In that situation, appropriate palliative care could be initiated for the patient's and family's comfort. Accurate nursing assessment, evaluation, communication, and documentation of both the behaviors and interventions is vital in supporting both patients and families.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.224
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.219 · 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.

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

Citations10
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gerontological NursingSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207