Sexually inappropriate behaviour in demented elderly people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To determine the prevalence, aetiology, and treatment profile of abnormal sexual behaviour in subjects with dementia in psychogeriatric practices. METHODS: A retrospective cross sectional study was conducted in a long term care psychiatry consultation service, community based geriatric psychiatry service, and an inpatient dementia behavioural unit in Edmonton, Canada. RESULTS: Forty one subjects (1.8%) had sexually inappropriate behaviour. Of those cognitively impaired subjects with sexually inappropriate behaviour, 20 (48.8%) were living in nursing homes and the rest, 21 (51.2%) in the community. Of these subjects, 53.7% had vascular dementia, 22% had Alzheimer's, and 9.8% had mild cognitive impairment. History of alcohol misuse and psychosis were reported in 14.6% and 9.8% of subjects respectively. Twenty seven (65.7%) had verbally inappropriate behaviour and 36 (87.8%) had physically inappropriate behaviour. In this study, verbally inappropriate behaviour was more commonly seen in the community sample (81%) than in the nursing home sample (50%) (p = 0.04). Behavioural treatment was also more commonly seen in the community sample (81%) than in the nursing home sample (45%) (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: In this study sexually inappropriate behaviour was seen in all stages of dementia, more commonly associated with subjects of vascular aetiology, and is as commonly seen in community dwelling subjects with dementia as in nursing home subjects.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".