Misplacing objects in mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: a descriptive analysis from the VISTA clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Misplacing objects is a commonly reported symptom of Alzheimer's disease (AD) but it is little described systematically and conflicting characterisations (losing/forgetting the location of objects versus inappropriate placement) of this "warning sign" of dementia currently exist. Patient and carer descriptions of misplacing in clinical interviews are reported here. METHODS: This was a secondary qualitative analysis of video recorded, open ended and semistructured clinical interviews with 130 community dwelling patients with mild to moderate AD (mean age 77 (7.7) years; 63% women; 67% mild AD) and their carers who participated in the Video Imaging Synthesis of Treating Alzheimer's Disease (VISTA) study, a 4 month, randomised, placebo controlled trial of galantamine. Employing a framework analysis approach, we summarised descriptive accounts of misplacing with relevant proportions. RESULTS: Recurrent incidents of misplacing were described for 96/130 (74%) study patients, 45 of whom established treatment goals to track this problem. For most (78/96, 81%), misplacing was the inability to recall where an item had been set down or put away. Fewer patients (25/96, including 18 with recall misplacing) put objects in unusual or incorrect places. Patients were commonly aware of their misplacing (56/96, 58%) and were distressed by it (31/56). Patients who misplaced also displayed tendencies towards delusions/hallucinations (51/96, but only directly related to misplacing in 17 cases) and hiding items (15%) CONCLUSION: Misplacing is a common phenomenon in mild to moderate AD. Here, misplacing was usually described as an inability to recall where an item was set down, more so than the inappropriate placement of items.
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 | 0.016 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".