Cognitive impairment, dementia and quality of life in patients and caregivers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of cognitive impairment and severity of dementia on the quality of life (QoL) of patients and their caregivers. DESIGN: Descriptive cross-sectional study within the NAtional Dementia Economic Study. SETTING: 231 general practices and 15 specialist clinics in Belgium. SUBJECTS: 605 patients aged > or = 65 years: 106 referent subjects without cognitive impairment (R), 113 subjects with cognitive impairment and no dementia (CIND), 386 subjects with mild (83), mild/moderate (108), moderate (62) or severe (133) dementia (D1 to D4). OUTCOME MEASURES: QoL of patients: COOP/WONCA charts, Katz's Activities of Daily Living (ADL) scale, Lawton's Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) scale. QoL of caregivers: COOP/WONCA charts, SF-36 questionnaire, short-form Beck Depression Inventory, Sense of Competence questionnaire (SCQ). MAIN RESULTS: QoL of patients: For R, CIND and D1 to D4 patients, dependence for ADL reached 5%, 6%, 16%, 20%, 48% and 79%, respectively, and mean IADL scores were 5.6, 5.0, 3.4, 2.0, 0.6 and 0.1, respectively. QoL of caregivers: The main impact of caregiving was on mental health, with SF-36 MCS scores of 51.3, 47.7 and 45.4 for R, CIND and all D patients and respectively 32.6%, 31.3% and 42.5% depression prevalence. Sense of competence decreased with severity of patient's cognitive impairment. Caregivers of CIND patients always rated intermediate between R and D1 patients. Caregivers of D3 patients were the most affected ones. CONCLUSION: The data suggest that improving the cognitive status of patients and providing assistance to caregivers would be complementary ways of action to support caregiving of patients living at home.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".