MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139719054 · doi:10.1017/s1041610209990433

Knowledge of Alzheimer's disease and subjective memory impairment in Latin American seniors in the Greater Toronto Area

2009· article· en· W2139719054 on OpenAlexaffabout
Luis Fornazzari, Corinne E. Fischer, Lee Ringer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Psychogeriatrics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatin AmericansGerontologyPsychologyAcculturationDiseaseCognitive impairmentMedicineCognitionPsychiatryImmigrationGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study examined knowledge levels of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in a sample of Latin American seniors attending AD educational sessions in a Canadian city; and investigated the relationship between knowledge of AD, demographic variables, education level, acculturation level (years living in Canada), subjective memory complaint and objective memory impairment. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-five Spanish-speaking adults living independently in the Greater Toronto Area completed subjective and objective memory measures and completed a questionnaire on their knowledge of AD. RESULTS: Knowledge of AD was very weakly correlated with level of education and years living in Canada. In addition, there were no correlations between knowledge level and gender or subjective memory complaints. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that Latin American seniors, in the Toronto community, are not knowledgeable about AD. In spite of showing subjective cognitive impairment the sample were not aware of the principal cause of their symptoms. Additional research is needed to develop better focused and specifically directed health promotion initiatives for the Latin American seniors living in the Toronto community.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational PsychogeriatricsSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207