Vorstellungen in der Altenbevölkerung über die Ursachen von Gedächtnisstörungen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fragestellung: Die frühzeitige Erkennung demenzieller Erkrankungen gewinnt zunehmend an Bedeutung. Dabei spielen Laienüberzeugungen über die Ursachen der Krankheit eine große Rolle; wird doch von diesen das Hilfesuchverhalten mitbestimmt. Methode: Wir befragten im Rahmen der Leipziger Langzeitstudie in der Altenbevölkerung (LEILA 75+) 720 Personen im Alter von 75 Jahren und älter zu ihren Vorstellungen über die Ursachen von Gedächtnisstörungen. Ergebnisse: Gut ein Drittel der Befragten nannte ausschließlich biologische Ursachen, wobei vaskuläre Läsionen an erster Stelle rangierten. Ein Viertel führte die Gedächtnisstörung allein auf nichtbiologische Faktoren zurück. Jeder Zehnte vermutete Ursachen aus beiden Bereichen. Ein Viertel wusste keine Antwort auf unsere Frage. Diskussion: Die Ergebnisse werden mit denen der epidemiologischen Forschung zur Demenz kontrastiert. Es wird auf die Notwendigkeit einer vermehrten Aufklärung des Laienpublikums hingewiesen. Lay Beliefs on the Causes of Dementia Among the Elderly Purpose: The early recognition of dementia assumes increasing importance. Lay beliefs on the causes of loss of memory play a major part in this regard as they have shown to determine help-seeking behaviour. Method: 720 persons aged 75 or older were questioned on their beliefs on the causes of cognitive deficits in the context of the Leipzig Longitudinal Study of the Aged (LEILA 75+). Results: Almost one-third of the respondents mentioned exclusively biological causes, vascular lesions coming first. One quarter of those questioned ascribed memory deficits to non-biological factors. Every tenth person suspected that they result from a combination of both. One quarter of the elderly did not know any answer. Discussion: The results are contrasted with outcomes of epidemiological dementia research. It is argued that increasing and better quality information of the public are urgently required.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".