Personalized Visual Mapping Assistive Technology to Improve Functional Ability in Persons With Dementia: Feasibility Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) apps using novel visual mapping assistive technology can allow users to develop personalized maps that aid people living with cognitive impairment in the recall of steps needed to independently complete activities of daily living (ADLs), such as bathing, toileting, and dressing. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the feasibility and preliminary impact of an mHealth assistive technology app providing guidance to aid individuals living with cognitive impairment in the recall of steps to independently complete ADLs. METHODS: A total of 14 Veterans (mean age 65 SD 9.5 years; 14/14, 100% male; 10/14, 71.4% Black) and 8 non-Veterans (mean age 78, SD 10.3 years; 5/8, 62.5% male; 8/8, 100% Black) were recruited and enrolled from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA cognitive care clinics. A visual mapping software program, MapHabit, was used to generate a series of personalized visual map templates focused on ADLs created within the MapHabit app. The visual maps were accessed through a tablet device. A 19-item exit questionnaire was administered to the participants to assess perceived improvement in their functional ability after using the MapHabit system for 3 months. RESULTS: A total of 13 (93%) VA clinic participants and 8 (100%) non-VA clinic participants completed the 3-month study. Baseline cognitive testing indicated impaired to significantly impaired cognitive function. After 3 months of using the MapHabit system, VA clinic participants reported perceived improvement in social engagement (P=.01) and performance of ADLs (P=.05) compared to the baseline, whereas non-VA clinic participants reported improvements in the performance of ADLs (P=.02), mood (P=.04), social engagement (P=.02), and memory (P=.02). All study participants reported they would recommend the MapHabit system to a colleague, and 85% (11/14) of VA and 100% (8/8) of non-VA clinic participants reported a willingness to participate in a future study. CONCLUSIONS: Older VA and non-VA clinic participants with cognitive impairment were willing to use an mHealth app to assist with the completion of ADLs, and they reported positive preliminary effects. A larger study is warranted to assess the efficacy in the setting of a randomized controlled trial.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".