The clinical and economic burden among caregivers of patients with Alzheimer's disease in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the clinical and direct medical economic burden among Alzheimer disease (AD) caregivers using real-world, longitudinal patient-level data in Canada. METHODS/DESIGN: This retrospective observational study assessed the clinical and direct medical economic burden among individuals who cohabitate with AD patients ("AD caregiver cohort") compared with older adults who were cohabiting with another adult without dementia ("comparison cohort") using real-world data from the Southwestern Ontario database, a representative Canadian electronic health record (EHR) longitudinal EHR. RESULTS: The AD caregiver cohort (n = 2749; mild AD: n = 2254, moderate AD: n = 302, and severe AD, n = 193) had a similar or higher level of clinical and economic burden than the comparison cohort (n = 12 152). The overall AD cohort and caregivers of patients with mild AD had a similar clinical burden to the comparison cohort. Those caregiving for more severely affected AD patients had an increased risk of comorbidities and required more medication, physician attention, and hospital encounters compared with caregivers of less severe AD patients and the comparison cohort. Mean annual costs were higher among the AD caregiver cohort than the comparison cohort, and those caregiving for moderate and severe AD patients incurred the highest costs. Overall mortality was higher in the AD caregiver cohort compared with the comparison cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers of patients with mild AD had a similar clinical and direct economic burden to older adults who were not dementia caregivers, whereas the burden among caregivers of moderate and severe AD patients was much greater.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".