Health service utilization among demented individuals with or without mood disorders in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To assess how comorbid mood disorders were associated with health service utilization of individuals with Alzheimer???s disease or other dementias in a Canadian household population.\nMethods: The study utilized a population-based secondary data analysis approach, using data from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) 2011-2012 annual component.\nResults: Mood disorders were found to be more prevalent among persons with Alzheimer???s disease or other dementias compared to those without (26.7% vs 7.7%). Multivariable analysis showed that individuals with Alzheimer???s disease or other dementias and a comorbid mood disorder were more likely to use community and medical mental health services (AOR: 1.79, P=0.030) (AOR: 6.58, P=0.000).\nConclusion: The increased usage of health services in persons with Alzheimer???s disease or other dementias and a comorbid mood disorder exhibit the importance of understanding the needs of these individuals to help shift public policy. This will aid researchers in developing and implementing improved services.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".