A personal assistant for dementia to stay at home safe at reduced cost
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper presents the results of an evaluation of the commercially available PAL4-dementia system, a supportive touch screen for people with dementia. The main purpose was to study the advantages and disadvantages of the system from the perspective of the client, family and professional caregiver and the potentials to upscale its use. Method The evaluation was conducted over 9 months with 16 clients of 2 healthcare organizations in the Netherlands. A mixed-method design was used in this pilot, involving log files of system use, interviews with family caregivers, a focus group made up of professional caregivers, observations of project group meetings and a cost analysis. Results Clients and family caregivers reported good support of daily life activities. They thought the system could help the client to live at home for a longer period of time. The cost analysis showed monthly savings per client as compared to living in a nursing home ranging from around € 820 (10 clients) to € 860 (50 clients). Despite these positive results, numerous problems were detected: (i) interruptions of technology, (ii) insufficient operation knowledge of professional caregivers, (iii) insufficient active involvement of family caregivers, and (iv) limited user friendliness of the lay-out.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.125 | 0.032 |
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".