MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981049121 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2019.06.3885

P4‐222: INTEGRATED CARE PATHWAY FOR AGITATION IN ALZHEIMER'S DEMENTIA

2019· article· en· W2981049121 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sanjeev Kumar, Amruta Shanbhag, Simon Davies, Donna Kim, Philip Gerretsen, Ariel Graff‐Guerrero, Sarah Colman, Saima Awan, Jyll Simmons, Amer M. Burhan, Bruce G. Pollock, Benoit H. Mulsant, Tarek K. Rajji

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolypharmacyPsychomotor agitationDementiaMedicineDistressPsychiatryDiseaseInternal medicineClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) experience agitation at some point in their illness. Agitation and other neuropsychiatric symptoms are associated with variation and inappropriate use of medications. To address these issues we designed an integrated care pathway (ICP) that standardizes assessments and ensures measurement-based treatment, use of non-pharmacological interventions, and a sequential pharmacological algorithm. Here we report outcomes from the implementation of the ICP at an inpatient unit and a long-term care home (LTCH). Patients diagnosed with Dementia of AD or mixed AD + vascular type and clinically significant agitation were enrolled and assessed using Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory–Frequency (CMAI-F) and Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q) as well as for polypharmacy and length of treatment episode. ICP outcomes from its first three years of implementation were also compared to treatment-as-usual (TAU) in the three years prior to the ICP. Finally, we implemented the ICP at a LTCH and compared it also to TAU. 55 patients completed the inpatient ICP. CMAI-F and NPI-Q significantly decreased. 12.7% of patients improved after just cleaning up psychotropic agents, 80% improved with only one medication, and 7.3 % required polypharmacy. Comparing the ICP to TAU, patients in both groups achieved clinical improvement. Mean length of treatment episode in TAU was significantly longer than that in the ICP group. The proportion of patients treated with polypharmacy was more than 4-fold higher in TAU than in the ICP. In LTCH, 18 residents completed the ICP. NPI-Q severity and distress scores significantly decreased. 17% patients were treated without medications, 82% with one medication, and 11% with polypharmacy. Comparing them with 18 residents treated with TAU, mean length of treatment episode in TAU was significantly longer than that in the ICP. The proportion of patients treated with polypharmacy was 4-fold higher in TAU than in the ICP. An algorithmic approach is efficacious in treating agitation in AD with low rates of polypharmacy. Building on these results, we are now testing the ICP in a multisite randomized controlled trial in Canada which design and rationale we will present at the meeting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes→French-language works237,207→