MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088659300 · doi:10.1177/2055668320938591

Smart home technology solution for night-time wandering in persons with dementia

2020· article· en· W3088659300 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laura Ault, Rafik Goubran, Bruce Wallace, Hailey Lowden, Frank Knoefel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of OttawaBruyèreInnovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBedroomDementiaPsychologyAnxietyPsychiatryMedicineEngineeringDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: More than half of persons with dementia will experience night-time wandering, increasing their risk of falls and unattended home exits. This is a major predictor of caregiver burnout and one of the major causes of early institutionalization. METHODS: Using smart home technologies such as sensors, smart bulbs, pressure mats and speakers, the Night-time Wandering Detection and Diversion system is designed to assist caregivers and persons with dementia that are at risk of wandering at night. Being placed in homes around Ottawa for a 12-week trial, the system allows caregivers to rest peacefully in the night, as it detects when the person with dementia gets out of bed and automatically provides cue lighting to guide them safely to the washroom. The system also uses prerecorded audio prompts, if they venture from the bedroom, only waking the caregiver when the person with dementia opens an exit door. RESULTS: Thus far, the average depression and anxiety in caregivers have been improved after the 12 weeks, and most have said that they sleep more peacefully. CONCLUSION: The system has proven successful in supporting the safety of persons with dementia as well as their caregivers.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.354
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.223 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations48
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies EngineeringSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207