Emergency department interventions for persons with dementia presenting with ambulatory care-sensitive conditions: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Review question/objective: The objective of this scoping review is to examine and map, within existing literature, the characteristics of emergency department/urgent care interventions, strategies or contextual factors, implemented to reduce unnecessary hospitalization of people with dementia (PWD) presenting at the emergency department/urgent care with ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (ACSC). More specifically, the review questions are: What non-pharmacological interventions or strategies, including, but not limited to, screening, assessments, clinical pathways, appropriate referrals and sensory overload reduction, are used in emergency departments for PWD presenting with ACSC? What are the characteristics and settings of these interventions, and how do they affect the disposition of PWD? What contextual factors, including, but not limited to, staff education, staffing mix and levels, and alterations to the physical environment, exist in emergency department/urgent care? What are the characteristics of these factors and the settings in which they are used?
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".