MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171271545 · doi:10.1002/gps.3934

Prevalence and correlates of potentially undetected dementia among residents of institutional care facilities in Ontario, Canada, 2009–2011

2013· article· en· W2171271545 on OpenAlexaffabout
Emma Bartfay, Wally J. Bartfay, Kevin M. Gorey

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaGerontologyMedicineEnvironmental healthFamily medicineDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine the prevalence of potentially undetected dementia among institutional care facility residents in Ontario, Canada, and to identify factors associated with undetection. METHODS: We utilized a population-based secondary data analysis approach, pertaining to data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information's Continuing Care Reporting System, 2009-2011. Potentially undetected dementia was defined as having severely impaired cognitive function and requiring extensive assistance on activity of daily living (ADL) but no records of dementia diagnoses. Cognitive function was measured by the Cognitive Performance Scale (CPS), 0 (intact) to 6 (very severe impairment), and ADL by a hierarchy scale, 0 (independent) to 6 (total dependence). RESULTS: Of the 242,957 residents who had no records of dementia diagnoses, 11.6% (n = 28,078) had a CPS score ≥4 (severe impairment or higher) and ADL score ≥3 (required extensive assistance or more). Data from 11,614 demented residents with corresponding CPS and ADL scores were used for comparison. Residents without dementia diagnosis were younger (77 vs. 84 years), more likely to have never married (20% vs. 6%), and have longer admission (4 vs. 2.8 years). The most significant factors for no diagnoses were never married (adjusted odds ratio = 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.91-2.29), admitted to hospital-based facilities (adjusted odds ratio = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.48-1.69), presence of schizophrenia (adjusted odds ratio = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.22-1.69), depression (adjusted odds ratio = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.16-1.29), and diabetes mellitus (adjusted odds ratio = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.26-1.40). CONCLUSIONS: A large number of residents who had poor cognitive function and inadequate ADL ability did not have dementia diagnoses on record. Social and comorbid conditions were contributing factors to potentially undetected dementia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations38
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Geriatric PsychiatrySame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207