Patient and Public Involvement in Identifying Dementia Research Priorities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To engage persons with dementia, friends, family, caregivers, and health and social care providers to identify and prioritize their questions for research related to living with dementia and prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of dementia. DESIGN: The Canadian Dementia Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) followed James Lind Alliance PSP methods. Results were compared with the World Health Organization research prioritization exercise and the United Kingdom Dementia PSP. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: In the first survey, 1,217 individuals and groups from across Canada submitted their questions about dementia. 249 participated in the interim prioritization. For the final prioritization workshop, the 28 participants included persons with dementia, friends, family, caregivers, health and social care providers, Alzheimer Society representatives, and members of an organization representing long-term care home residents. RESULTS: The Canadian Dementia PSP top 10 priorities relate to health, quality of life, societal issues, and dementia care. Five priorities overlap with one or both of the other two prioritization initiatives. CONCLUSION: These results provide researchers and research funding agencies with topics that individuals with personal or professional experience of dementia prioritize, but they are not intended to preclude research into other aspects of dementia.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".