Changes in awareness of condition in people with mild‐to‐moderate dementia: Longitudinal findings from the IDEAL cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Awareness of difficulties shown by people with dementia is known to vary, but few studies have explored changes in awareness over time. Investigating this could further the understanding of surrounding concepts and reasons for impaired awareness. Recognising emerging or diminishing awareness could facilitate discussions about diagnosis and appropriate post-diagnostic support. METHODS: Using longitudinal data from the Improving the experience of Dementia and Enhancing Active Life (IDEAL) cohort, awareness in community-dwelling people with mild-to-moderate dementia was assessed at three timepoints over 2 years. A validated checklist was used to evaluate awareness of difficulties associated with dementia. We examined changes in awareness for people with low awareness at baseline, and used case-matching to describe differences in characteristics between people who gained awareness, and those who continued with low awareness. RESULTS: At baseline, 83 people from a sample of 917 showed low awareness. The majority of those remaining in the study at later timepoints had gained awareness, some as late as four or more years after diagnosis. Case-matched comparisons revealed few distinguishing characteristics: cases with stable low awareness had similar or better cognitive and functional ability than those who gained and retained awareness at 12 and 24 months, but may have had more co-morbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported awareness of difficulties can change and may increase over time in people with mild-to-moderate dementia. There may be individual reasons for ongoing low awareness, not explained by cognitive or functional ability. This challenges the view that a single record of low awareness represents a fixed disease-related symptom, and highlights the complex, individual and dynamic nature of awareness.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".