MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ภาวะการรคดบกพรองเลกนอยในผสงอายเจบปวยเรอรงทมารบบรการคลนกโรคเรอรงของหนวยบรการปฐมภมแหงหนงฯMild Cognitive Impairment in Older Persons with Chronic Illness Attended at a Chronic Care Clinic of a Primary Care Unit Khon Kaen Provinc

2014· article· th· W21875695 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Suttinan Subindee, Wanapa Sritanyarat

Bibliographic record

Venueวารสารพยาบาลศาสตร์และสุขภาพ (Journal of Nursing Science and Health) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageth
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSaskatchewan Health Research Foundation
KeywordsMedicineCognitionConfusionCognitive impairmentDescriptive statisticsChronic diseasePrimary careOlder peopleGerontologyMemory clinicPopulationPsychiatryFamily medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This descriptive research aimed to study mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in older persons with chronic illness attended at a chronic care clinic of a primary care unit. The population was 163 chronically ill older persons attended at the clinic. Sample of 86 persons was recruited based on specific criteria. Data were collected using questionnaire developed by the researcher. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. Results showed that most of the sample were females in young old age group, had 2 or more chronic illnesses and got 4 or more medicines. MCI deficits found were: Memory,forgotten about the things; Attention,inattention; Thinking,confused thinking/speaking; Orientation,confusion about the day; and Language,using wrong words. However, Executive function was appropriate. Findings from this study can be used to enhance cognitive function in MCI older persons.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueวารสารพยาบาลศาสตร์และสุขภาพ (Journal of Nursing Science and Health)Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207