A pilot study of potential brain donor satisfaction and attitudes towards telephone assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Test the feasibility of assessing cognition, psychiatric symptoms and daily living skills of potential brain donors by telephone and compare satisfaction and attitudes across telephone and face-to-face assessment. METHOD: Data were collected from 108 healthy participants from the Brains for Dementia Research cohort. Purposive sampling was used to assess feasibility and a randomised control trial design compared satisfaction and attitudes towards telephone and face-to-face assessment. Non-parametric tests were conducted to compare groups, and logistic regression was performed to assess the relationship between satisfaction and participant characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 80 participants offered telephone assessment, 67 (83.8%) agreed, 2 (2.5%) had a significant hearing impairment, 4 (5.0%) had potential memory problems and 7 (8.7%) declined. On average, telephone assessments lasted 38 min and duration was negatively associated with Telephone Interview of Cognitive Status-Modified scores (p = 0.001) and positively associated with age (p = 0.040), Neuropsychiatric Inventory scores (p = 0.019), Geriatric Depression Scale (p = 0.035) and Global Deterioration Scale (p = 0.022). Satisfaction was high in respect to organisational and personal aspects; ratings did not differ significantly across telephone and face-to-face assessment groups and were not related to socio-demographic characteristics. Participants undergoing telephone assessment were significantly more likely to hold positive attitudes towards this mode of assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone assessment is feasible, time-efficient and acceptable to healthy, potential brain donors. When used with other assessment modes and within the context of established contact, telephone assessment offers greater flexibility to researchers and participants and represents an effective mechanism for overcoming the challenges of growing, ageing cohorts and uncertain resources. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".