MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096346147 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.070803

Diagnosis and treatment of dementia: 4. Approach to management of mild to moderate dementia

2008· review· en· W2096346147 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMedicineComputer scienceData scienceIntensive care medicineWorld Wide WebPathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The management of mild to moderate dementia presents complex and evolving challenges. Practising physicians are often uncertain about the appropriate approaches to issues such as the disclosure of the diagnosis, driving and caregiver support. In this article, we provide practical guidance on management based on recommendations from the Third Canadian Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia. METHODS: We developed evidence-based guidelines using systematic literature searches, with specific criteria for the selection and quality assessment of articles, and a clear and transparent decision-making process. We selected articles published from January 1996 to December 2005 that dealt with the management of mild to moderate stages of Alzheimer disease and other forms of dementia. Recommendations based on the literature review were drafted and voted on. Consensus required 80% or more agreement by participants. Subsequent to the conference, we searched for additional articles published from January 2006 to April 2008 using the same major keywords and secondary search terms. We graded the strength of evidence using the criteria of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. RESULTS: We identified 1615 articles, of which 954 were selected for further study. From a synthesis of the evidence in these studies, we made 48 recommendations for the management of mild to moderate dementia (28) and dementia with a cerebrovascular component (8) as well as recommendations for addressing ethical issues (e.g., disclosure of the diagnosis) (12). The updated literature review did not change these recommendations. In brief, patients and their families should be informed of the diagnosis. Although the specifics of managing comorbid conditions might require modification, standards of care and treatment targets would not change because of a mild dementia. The use of medications with anticholinergic effects should be minimized. There should be proactive planning for driving cessation, since this will be required at some point in the course of progressive dementia. The patient's ability to drive should be determined primarily on the basis of his or her functional abilities. An important aspect of care is supporting the patient's primary caregiver. INTERPRETATION: Much has been learned about the care of patients with mild to moderate dementia and the support of their primary caregivers. There is a pressing need for the development, and dissemination, of collaborative systems of care.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.304 · 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