Therapeutic Touch and Agitation in Individuals With Alzheimer's Disease
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited effective strategies exist to alleviate or treat disruptive behaviors in people with Alzheimer's disease. Fifty-one residents of a long-term care facility with Alzheimer's disease were randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups. A multiple time series, blinded, experimental design was used to compare the effectiveness of therapeutic touch, simulated therapeutic touch, and usual care on disruptive behavior. Three forms of disruptive behavior comprised the dependent variables: physical aggression, physical nonaggression, and verbal agitation. Physical nonaggressive behaviors decreased significantly in those residents who received therapeutic touch compared with those who received the simulated version and the usual care. No significant differences in physically aggressive and verbally agitated behaviors were observed across the three study groups. The study provided preliminary evidence for the potential for therapeutic touch in dealing with agitated behaviors by people with dementia. Researchers and practitioners must consider a broad array of strategies to deal with these behaviors.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it