MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2765740185 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2017.06.940

[P2–287]: WHAT DOES THE SYMPTOM OF MISPLACING OBJECTS MEAN IN PEOPLE WITH DEMENTIA? FINDINGS FROM AN ONLINE TRACKING TOOL

2017· article· en· W2765740185 on OpenAlexaff
Susan E. Howlett, Justin Stanley, Helen Wong, Kenneth Rockwood

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaTypologySign (mathematics)DiseaseFrontotemporal dementiaPsychologyThe InternetMedicinePsychiatryInternal medicineWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The internet allows people with dementia/caregivers to identify and track common and troubling symptoms such as misplacing objects. Misplacing objects might even be an early sign of dementia progression. Here we use an online tracking tool to explore misplacing objects in relation to dementia type and stage in an internet-based sample of patients and their caregivers. Our goals were to determine whether it is an early sign of disease and whether the nature of misplacing objects changes as disease progresses. Study participants were recruited from users of the Dementia SymptomGuide™, an online tracking tool. We qualitatively analyzed the symptom descriptors to develop a typology of misplacing objects. Then, we analyzed the pattern of misplacing objects and its types in relation to other symptoms and dementia stage among respondents who targeted at least three symptoms for monitoring. Dementia cause was identified from users who reported a dementia diagnosis and was staged, from Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) to Severe, using a validated algorithm. Of 12487 site users, 6206 tracked 3+ symptoms, of whom 43.8% (2717) identified misplacing objects. Compared to those in whom it was not targeted, those with misplacing objects more often had mild dementia (n=1725; 63.5% vs n=1282 36.7%, p=0.001). Fewer had frontotemporal dementia (9.6% vs.17.1%, p=0.001). Three types were identified: “lost & found” (objects simply mislaid, selected in 96.8%), “odd places” (31.0%), and “hidden away” (42.2%). “Odd places” increased with dementia severity (383/2097; 18.3% MCI-Mild vs 460/620; 74.2% Moderate-Severe, p<0.001), as did “hidden away” (591/2097; 28.2% MCI-Mild vs 556/620; 89.7% Moderate-Severe, p<0.001). Misplacing objects was also associated with inattention (OR 2.83, 95% CI: 2.65–3.02) and verbal repetition (2.21, 2.10–2.32). We found that misplacing objects is often tracked in MCI-Mild dementia, possibly reflecting it being an early sign. As disease progresses, misplacing more often reflects odd placement or hiding of objects than simple loss. Understanding whether delay in onset of misplacing objects might reflect clinically important disease modification after intervention is motivating further inquiries by our group.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility→French-language works237,207→