Associations between unmet palliative care needs and cognitive impairment in a sample of diverse, community-based older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Given a large number of community-based older adults with mild cognitive impairment, it is essential to better understand the relationship between unmet palliative care (PC) needs and mild cognitive impairment in community-based samples. METHOD: Participants consisted of adults ages 60+ receiving services at senior centers located in New York City. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Unmet Palliative Care Needs screening tool were used to assess participants' cognitive status and PC needs. RESULTS: Our results revealed a quadratic relationship between unmet PC needs and mild cognitive impairment, controlling for gender, living status, and age. Participants with either low or high MoCA scores reported lower PC needs than participants with average MoCA scores, mean difference of the contrast (low and high vs. middle) = 2.15, P = 0.08. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: This study is a first step toward elucidating the relationship between cognitive impairment and PC needs in a diverse community sample of older adults. More research is needed to better understand the unique PC needs of older adults with cognitive impairment living in the community.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".