Institutionalization risk and costs associated with agitation in Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Agitation in individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD) may predict institutionalization. This study assessed the incremental risk and costs associated with agitation in individuals with AD. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set (June 2005-February 2018) was conducted. Incremental risk of institutionalization associated with agitation was estimated and used with the number of institutionalized individuals with AD and agitation and costs of living by residential setting in the United States (literature-based), to estimate incremental institutionalization costs. RESULTS: The analysis included 11,348 individuals with AD: 6603 (58.2%) with and 4745 (41.8%) without agitation. Compared with individuals without agitation, those with agitation were 20% more likely to be institutionalized (odds ratio = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.08-1.33). Total incremental cost of institutionalization associated with agitation was $4.3 billion ($50,588/individual). DISCUSSION: Agitation is associated with a higher risk of institutionalization among patients with AD, which translates into a substantial economic burden.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".