Relationship between Alzheimer's Disease Severity and Patient Participation in Decisions about Their Medical Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To examine the relationships between Alzheimer's disease (AD) severity and patient participation in decisions about their medical care, we performed a cross-sectional study of 74 caregivers' ratings of the degree to which AD patients participate in making decisions about their medical care. The majority of the caregivers reported that they made the final decisions about medical care (n = 48, 64%), one-quarter (n = 19, 26%) reported an equal role, and a small proportion (n = 7, 9%) reported that the patient made the final decisions. Multivariate models showed that the significant predictors of the patient's participation in decisions about medical care were measures of dementia severity: Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR). Patients with mild-stage disease (CDR = 1 or MMSE > or = 20) are involved in decision making largely in a collaborative role with the caregiver. Beyond mild-stage disease, the clinician can largely expect that the caregiver is making the final decisions. These results illustrate how and when caregivers can expect changes in their decision making role.
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 | 0.003 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".