Detection of anxiety symptoms in persons with dementia: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Anxiety is a common symptom for those experiencing dementia and is associated with worse outcomes. The aim of the study was to examine which anxiety tools have been validated compared with a gold standard diagnostic criterion in persons with dementia. METHODS: We completed a systematic review of the literature, which was registered a priori with PROSPERO (CRD42016042123). Three databases were searched, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, as well as the gray literature. Abstracts and full text were searched in duplicate for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed in duplicate. RESULTS: We identified 9626 citations from all sources after duplicates were removed. Many excluded studies used tools for anxiety, for which no diagnostic accuracy study was identified. Four articles were included in the final synthesis. Included articles had between 32 to 101 participants with mild to moderate dementia. The gold standard criteria focused on either generalized anxiety or all anxiety subtypes. The prevalence of anxiety was between 27.7% and 63.4%. Three tools were examined, the Geriatric Anxiety Inventory, Penn State Worry Questionnaire, and the Rating Anxiety in Dementia (RAID) scale. Sensitivity varied but was the highest in the RAID at 90% and lowest in the self-rated version of the Geriatric Anxiety Inventory (58%). DISCUSSION: Given how burdensome the symptoms of anxiety are to persons with dementia, valid tools are needed to help identify symptoms. We identified three validated tools, but further validation of these and other tools are needed. Practitioners should consider the use of tools with high sensitivity such as the RAID in persons with 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 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 | 0.010 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".