Prevalence, Disability and Need in Adults with Severe Learning Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence from a variety of sources suggests that there has been an increase of around 1% per annum in the prevalence of learning disability (LD) in adults over the last 35 years, due mainly to increases in survival. This trend is likely to continue for at least another ten years. Ninety‐six percent of adults notified to the Leicestershire LD register have an estimated IQ below 50 or need supervision every day to remain safe. Three‐quarters have additional significant disabilities including behaviour problems, psychological symptoms, physical dependencies or epilepsy. In one quarter the behaviour problem poses a major challenge to the achievement of an ordinary life. Two‐thirds indicate a need for help from one or other specialist. Informal carers are actively providing care for nearly half the adults, but a quarter are not content with care‐giving. Carers Report 40% more limiting health problems than their counterparts in the general population, in particular depression in women and cardiovascular problems in men. The specific areas of unmet need among carers Reporting depression are for financial help, long‐term social support and medical advice. Resource allocation for this client group needs to be reviewed in the light of substantial and unrecognised increases in prevalence which are continuing to occur, and the need for long‐term support.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".