CCCDTD5: Individual and community‐based psychosocial and other non‐pharmacological interventions to support persons living with dementia and their caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Current pharmacological therapies for dementia have limited efficacy. Thus it is important to provide recommendations on individual and community‐based psychosocial and non‐pharmacological interventions for persons living with dementia (PLWDs) and their caregivers. Methods Phase 1: A systematic review for developing recommendations on psychosocial and non‐pharmacological interventions at the individual and community level for PLWDs and their caregivers. Phase 2: Rating of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. Phase 3: Delphi process (>50 dementia experts) for approving recommendations by the 5 th Canadian Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia (CCCDTD5). Results The CCCDTD5 approved the following recommendations: Exercise (1B) and group cognitive stimulation for PLWDs (2B), psychosocial and psychoeducational interventions for caregivers (2C), development of dementia friendly organization and communities (2C), and case management for PLWDs (2B). Discussion The CCCDTD5 provides for the first time, evidence‐based recommendations on psychosocial and non‐pharmacological interventions for PLWDs and their caregivers that can inform evidence‐based policies for PLWDs in Canada.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".