Assessment of time-related deficits in older adults: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: People with cognitive impairments often have difficulties in managing their time for daily activities. In older adults with cognitive impairments such as dementia and stroke, these may present as disorientation, poor time awareness, time perception, daily time management and so on. Time-related deficits and associated behaviours impede independent living and add considerably to caregiver strain. Several interventions are being investigated to help people with cognitive impairments orient and navigate time and do their daily activities. The provision of interventions requires the use of sound assessment tools. However, it is not clear how time-related concepts are specifically evaluated in practice, what are the available assessments and how these assessments should be selected. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: This protocol follows the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual (2020) for scoping reviews and is registered with the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/4ptgy/). We will include the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and PsycINFO. Two reviewers will independently screen eligible studies for inclusion against the selection criteria and then review the full-text of the selected studies. We will extract the bibliographic data, study design and setting, and details of assessments used in the studies to evaluate time-related concepts including format, mode and duration of administration, psychometric properties and so on. The identified assessments will be mapped with regard to time-related concepts being evaluated and described using narrative synthesis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As secondary data analysis, ethics approval is not required for this scoping review. We plan to disseminate the results through peer-reviewed journals and conferences targeting health professionals working with older adults.
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 | 0.120 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.021 |
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".