A personal assistant for dementia to stay at home safe at reduced cost
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
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.
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) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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