MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170255177 · doi:10.2196/15290

Existing Mobile Phone Apps for Self-Care Management of People With Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias: Systematic Analysis

2019· article· en· W3170255177 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yuqi Guo, Fan Yang, Fei Hu, Wei Li, Nicole Ruggiano, Hee Yun Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Aging · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReadabilityApp storePhoneNeurocognitiveMobile phoneMedicineAffect (linguistics)Mobile appsDementiaPsychologyDiseaseInternet privacyGerontologyWorld Wide WebComputer scienceCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer disease and related dementias (AD/RD) are progressive neurocognitive disorders that currently affect approximately 50 million people worldwide. Mobile phone apps have been well-integrated into daily lives and can be used to deliver and promote health care. There is an increase in the use of technology to provide care and support to AD/RD patients and their families. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to review apps designed for AD/RD patients and analyze the benefits of, and challenges to, such technological solutions. METHODS: A systematic approach was applied to review the availability, content, features, and quality of mobile phone apps to support self-care among AD/RD patients. RESULTS: The initial search for this review was conducted in January 2019, and the screening and analysis of the included apps were completed in May 2019. A total of 14 apps were included from an initial search of 245 apps. The top 3 features were alert (9/14, 64%), self-care tips (6/14, 42%), and social networking capacity (5/14, 35%). On average, the readability of the apps was a tenth-grade reading level (SD 3.06). The overall quality was 3.71 out of 5 (SD 1.37). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that currently available apps for AD/RD patients may not meet complex needs and may be challenging to use, given the possible impaired communication ability associated with AD/RD. Therefore, high-quality apps need to be developed and rigorously evaluated for feasibility and efficacy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.007
Bibliometrics0.0140.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations37
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR AgingSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207