MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792649255 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2018.02.004

Detecting agitation and aggression in people with dementia using sensors—A systematic review

2018· review· en· W2792649255 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Functions and Memory
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoOntario Stroke NetworkUniversity Health Network
FundersUniversity Health Network
KeywordsAggressionDementiaHarmSystematic reviewPsychological interventionPsychologyPsychomotor agitationPsychiatryClinical psychologyMedicineMEDLINEPathologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agitation and aggression are among the most challenging symptoms of dementia. Agitated persons with dementia can harm themselves, their caregivers, or other patients in a care facility. Automatic detection of agitation would be useful to alert caregivers so that appropriate interventions can be performed. The building blocks in the automatic detection of agitation and aggression are appropriate sensing platforms and generalized predictive models. In this article, we perform a systematic review of studies that use different types of sensors to detect agitation and aggression in persons with dementia. We conclude that actigraphy shows some evidence of correlation with incidences of agitation and aggression; however, multimodal sensing has not been fully evaluated for this purpose. Based on this systematic review, we provide guidelines and recommendations for future research directions in this field.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.291 · 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