Assessment of Dementia by a Primary Health Care Dementia Team Cooperating with the Family Doctor – The Norwegian Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To describe how dementia assessment could be organized in primary health care and how it works. METHODS: The project had two phases. In phase one 104 elderly patients were assessed by a local authority dementia team that used a standardized examination protocol, which enabled the family doctors to establish a dementia diagnosis. After evaluation and adjustments the model was extended to 31 local authorities and 474 patients were assessed. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 84.4 (SD 5.6) and 81.8 (SD 7.8) years, respectively; 81 and 67% were women, respectively. The mean Mini Mental State Examination scores were 21.1 (SD 5.0) and 19.2 (SD 5.1), respectively. All patients in phase one and 70% in phase two were diagnosed with dementia. In 15 local authorities a specially assigned family doctor assisted in establishing diagnoses. In these local authorities 80% of the patients were diagnosed. CONCLUSION: A local authority dementia team can collect the information required to enable a family doctor to establish a dementia diagnosis. Ideally, such teams should be assisted by a family doctor interested in dementia diagnostics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".