Measurement and analysis of behavioural disturbance among community-dwelling and institutionalized persons with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Census data suggest that persons over 84 years of age represent the fastest growing segment of populations in most western nations. As advancing age remains the single strongest risk factor for dementia, prevalence rates are expected to increase substantially in coming years. This awareness underscores the need to more fully understand the clinical presentation of Alzheimer disease and other neurodegenerative disorders. The present study examines responses to the 28-item Dementia Behaviour Disturbance Scale (DBD; Baumgarten, Becker, & Gauthier, 1990) among a national sample of persons with dementia (PWD) in Canada. A 3-factor solution appears to best reflect DBD responses for both institutionalized and community-dwelling PWD. This finding is notable given that the former was significantly more impaired and presented with significantly greater levels of behavioural disturbance. Support for the factorial validity of these constructs is provided relative to caregiver burden and depressive symptomatology. Of note, only 14 of 28 DBD items were retained in our analyses; on this basis, we propose the use of an abridged version of the scale. These findings can be generalized with greater confidence given the random and representative nature of the PWD and caregiver samples.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".