The Symptoms Targeted for Monitoring in a Web-Based Tracking Tool by Caregivers of People With Dementia and Agitation: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In people with dementia, neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPSs), especially agitation, are associated with worse quality of life and caregiver burden. As NPSs may vary with illness severity, knowledge of how people with dementia and their caregivers describe and rate the importance of agitation symptoms can improve the understanding of the clinical meaningfulness of the manifestations of agitation. The internet provides new opportunities to better understand patient experiences, as patients and caregivers increasingly look to Web-based platforms as a means of managing symptoms. Objective: The aim of this study was to examine Web-based reports from a dementia symptom website to better understand the symptoms of agitation and explore how they are being targeted for monitoring by caregivers of people with dementia. Methods: The Dementia Guide website hosts a Web-based database used by caregivers (97%) and people with dementia (3%). From its 61 dementia symptoms, users can select relevant symptoms that they deem important to monitor or track the effects of treatment. We employed a staging algorithm to determine if individuals had mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild, moderate, or severe dementia. Agitation was defined using terms consistent with the International Psychogeriatrics Association’s provisional consensus definition. We compared the proportion of people with NPSs and agitation across stages of dementia severity and studied how many agitation-defining descriptors were selected, and how often they occurred, by stage. Results: As of March 2017, 4121 people had used the tracking tool, of whom 2577 provided sufficient data to allow disease severity staging. NPSs were tracked by 2127/2577 (82.54%) and agitation by 1898/2577 (73.65%). The proportion in whom agitation was tracked increased with increasing cognitive impairment: 68.5% (491/717) in people with MCI, and 72.50% (754/1040), 73.3% (378/516), and 90.5% (275/304) in mild, moderate, and severe dementia, respectively (χ23=54.9; P<.001). The number of NPS and agitation descriptors selected also increased with severity (median number of NPSs=1, 2, 2, and 3 for MCI, mild, moderate, and severe dementia, respectively, Kruskal-Wallis H Test H3=250.47; P<.001; median number of agitation descriptors=1, 2, 3, and 4, H3=146.11; P<.001). Conclusions: NPSs and agitation are common targets for tracking over the course of dementia and appear more frequently with increasing disease severity. These common and distressing symptoms represent clinically meaningful targets in treating people 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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".