Quality of life in early dementia: Comparison of rural patient and caregiver ratings at baseline and one year
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined change in patient and caregiver ratings of patient quality of life (QOL) over one year in individuals with dementia living in rural and remote settings. The sample was selected from non-institutionalized patients who were assessed at an interprofessional memory clinic. Measures of QOL, cognitive function, depression, and functional ability were completed by the patient. Caregivers completed measures of patient QOL and behavior, and their own burden and distress. At baseline (clinic day) 119 patients and family caregivers were assessed. Thirty-two families had complete data at clinic day and one-year follow-up. There was no significant change in either patient or caregiver-rated QOL over one year. Significant predictors of patient self-rated QOL were patient symptoms of depressed mood and functional ability at clinic day, and symptoms of depressed mood and clinic day QOL at one year. Significant predictors of caregiver-rated patient QOL were caregiver burden, patient functional ability, and symptom severity at clinic day, and caregiver burden at one year. Patient and caregiver ratings of patient QOL were moderately associated, but neither patients nor their caregivers reported a significant change in patient QOL. Changes in QOL over time remain a unique individual experience that cannot be entirely predicted by analytical models.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".