221Predictors and Correlates of Caregiver Burden in Memory Clinics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although neuropsychiatric symptoms and individual carer characteristics are associated with caregiver burden, little is known about other contributing factors or whether the stage of cognitive impairment or individual cognitive scores are useful predictors in memory clinics. Methods: Consecutive patients referred to a university hospital memory clinic were included. A consultant geriatrician using DSM criteria determined diagnosis and stage. Caregiver burden was scored using the Caregiver Burden Score (CBS), (modified Zarit), with scores ≥15/30 suggesting burden. Additional caregiver data were obtained from the Quick Memory Check, a caregiver-administered cognitive screen. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen were scored independently. Results: In total, 344 patients were available. Their median age was 76 years (Interquartile tange ± 11) and 35% were female; One-third (34%) had CBS scores ≥15. Caregivers were significantly younger, (p < 0.001). The CBS weakly correlated with diagnostic category (r = 0.16, p = 0.001) and participant age (r = 0.22, p < 0.001) but had moderate correlation with MoCA (r = −0.54, p < 0.001) and Qmci screen scores (r = −0.60, p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the age, gender, education and time commitment (spent caring) profiles of carers reporting and those not reporting caregiver burden. Median CBS scores were significantly lower in those with subjective cognitive disorders and mild cognitive impairment than dementia, (X2 = 65, p < 0.001). Caregiver burden (CBS ≥15) was significantly associated with older patient age, impaired function (Barthel Index), established dementia and lower MoCA and Qmci screen scores but not with geriatric depression scale scores. Stepwise logistic regression confirmed age, function and cognitive screen scores as independent predictors. Conclusion: While caregiver burden, measured by the CBS, correlated poorly with the stage of cognitive impairment, it correlated moderately with cognitive screen scores. Caregiver burden can be suspected from patient’s age, function and cognitive scores, which should prompt further assessment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".