Cognitive impairment and assistive devices: Outcomes and adverse effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The goal of this review was to investigate the relationship between cognitive impairment and assistive device use in elderly persons. METHODS: English-language articles for people aged 65 and over were identified by searching MEDLINE and Embase (1985-June 2015) with the keywords "self-help devices" and "cognition disorders" and relevant synonyms. Bibliographies of retrieved articles were also examined; 510 articles were selected for further evaluation. Abstracts of the remaining articles were evaluated and all of the studies that concerned one or more of the following criteria were included: geriatric, long-term care residents or cognitively impaired patients using assistive devices that addressed benefits, risks, adverse effects, or other problems. Ultimately, 15 articles were analyzed and included in the review. RESULTS: Very few good-quality studies that specifically addressed the research question were found. We found that cognitively impaired elderly patients were more likely to use assistive devices ineffectively than cognitively intact elders. In addition, the literature describes promising approaches to assistive device training and technologies to accommodate cognitive impairment in this population. CONCLUSION: The evidence basis for recommendations and training for assistive devices for cognitively impaired elders is weak. More research is needed on safety and effectiveness of devices for this 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".