MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033840761 · doi:10.1002/trc2.12024

The design, evaluation, and reporting on non‐pharmacological, cognition‐oriented treatments for older adults: Results of a survey of experts

2020· review· en· W3033840761 on OpenAlexaff
Sharon Sanz Simon, Mary Castellani, Sylvie Belleville, Tzvi Dwolatzky, Benjamin M. Hampstead, Alex Bahar‐Fuchs

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia Translational Research & Clinical Interventions · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaCognitionPsychological interventionAffect (linguistics)PsychologyCognitive declineGerontologyIntervention (counseling)Quality of life (healthcare)MedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryDiseasePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Cognitive decline and dementia significantly affect independence and quality of life in older adults; therefore, it is critical to identify effective cognition-oriented treatments (COTs; eg, cognitive training, rehabilitation) that can help maintain or enhance cognitive functioning in older adults, as well as reduce dementia risk or alleviate symptoms associated with pathological processes. METHODS: The Cognitive Intervention Design Evaluation and Reporting (CIDER), a working group from the Non-Pharmacological Interventions Professional Interest Area (NPI-PIA) of the Alzheimer's Association conducted as survey in 2017 with experts in COTs worldwide. The survey's aims were three-fold: (1) determine the common attitudes, beliefs, and practices of experts involved in the COTs research targeting older people; (2) identify areas of relative agreement and disagreement among experts in the field; and (3) offer a critical review of the literature, including recommendations for future research. RESULTS: The survey identified several areas of agreements among experts on critical features of COTs, and on study design and outcome measures. Nevertheless, there were some areas with relative disagreement. Critically, expert opinions were not always supported by scientific evidence, suggesting that methodologic improvements are needed regarding design, implementation, and reporting of COTs. There was a clear consensus that COTs provide benefits and should be offered to cognitively unimpaired older adults, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and mild dementia, but opinions differed for moderate and severe dementia. In addition, there is no consensus on the potential role of COTs in dementia prevention, indicating that future research should prioritize this aspect. DISCUSSION: Evidence of COTs in older adults is encouraging, but additional evidence is needed to enhance dementia prevention. Consensus building and guidelines in the field are critical to improve and accelerate the development of high-quality evidence for COTs in cognitively unimpaired older adults, and those with MCI and 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.703
GPT teacher head0.631
Teacher spread0.072 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia Translational Research & Clinical InterventionsSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207