271 DRIVING PREVALENCE AMONGST PEOPLE ATTENDING A MULTIDISCIPLINARY MEMORY ASSESSMENT SERVICE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background In much literature dealing with people with age related disease and disability, safety can sometimes predominate over the preservation of autonomy and function (1). The degree to which safety issues figure at the time of assessment of people attending a memory assessment clinic in the Irish context is unknown. We assessed the perceptions of family/carers of safety issues in a cohort attending a newly developed memory assessment clinic. Method Prospective study of cohort attending a multidisciplinary memory assessment clinic in a university teaching hospital. Data was collected with a focus on informant history, diagnosis and functional decline measurements such as the Exit 25. Results There were 31 men and 39 women, mean age 76.2 years (range 6191). The diagnostic formulation was 57.1% (n = 40) non-dementia; 42.9% (n = 30) dementia. Informant history suggests safety concerns in 5.2% of the non-dementia group and 80% concern in those with dementia. Exit-25 scores ranged 0–23 (non-dementia) 2–29 (dementia). Concerns included cooking 1.6 % (n = 4), medication compliance 2.8 % (n = 7), financial issues 0.4% (n = 1), driving 2.4% (n = 6) and falls 0.8% (n = 2). Concerns in the group with dementia included cooking 3.6% (n = 12) medication compliance 4.5% (n = 15), financial issues 4.5% (n = 15), driving 4.2% (n = 14), falls 1.8% (n = 6) and getting lost 1.8% (n = 6). Conclusion The degree to which family/carers consider safety to be an issue for people with memory complaints is higher than a Canadian survey arising from a longitudinal study. Despite these concerns there remain a large number of patients navigating risk and functioning well with the aid of early diagnosis and support.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".