MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340331292 · doi:10.3233/jad-150957

The Instrumental Activity of Daily Living Profile in Aging: A Feasibility Study

2016· article· en· W2340331292 on OpenAlexaff
Nathalie Bier, Patrícia Belchior, Guillaume Paquette, Émilie Beauchemin, Ariane Lacasse-Champagne, Chantal Messier, Marie-Line Pellerin, Marisol Petit, Eneida Mioshi, Carolina Bottari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Alzheimer s Disease · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActivities of daily livingGerontologyDementiaPsychologyPsychological interventionIndependent livingPopulationMedicineDiseasePsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Dysfunctions in complex activities of daily living (ADLs) are a normal part of the aging process. However, differentiating functional decline associated with healthy aging from the subtle decline experienced by individuals with mild cognitive impairment and early dementia constitutes a challenge. Finding an appropriate tool that can capture these subtle but important functional changes represents a priority. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to evaluate the feasibility of using the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Profile (IADL Profile) with elderly participants and to describe their level of difficulty encountered in each task. METHODS: The tool was administered to a group of 40 elderly participants living in the community. RESULTS: The IADL Profile was found to be feasible to use in older individuals; the tool also showed sensitivity to the difficulties experienced by this population in everyday functioning. CONCLUSION: The IADL Profile is a promising ecological tool to evaluate independence in aging and may help to identify individuals with MCI. This tool may also contribute to the development of tailored interventions to enhance everyday functioning in the older population.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations26
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Alzheimer s DiseaseSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207