MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4312088455 · doi:10.1002/alz.059840

Functional profiles of older adults from the dementia continuum: Analyzing critical errors that occurred during an IADL ecological evaluation

2022· article· en· W4312088455 on OpenAlexaff
Amel Yaddaden

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActivities of daily livingDementiaInstitutionalisationPsychologyGerontologyTask (project management)Cognitive impairmentCategorizationCognitionDevelopmental psychologyMedicineDiseasePsychiatryComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Older adults with Alzheimer disease (AD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) experience challenges that affect their independence. Instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) are critical in assessing the independence. Single errors can have considerable impact, as they can lead to institutionalization. Thus, optimal recommendations regarding independence depends on an accurate analysis of IADL, including a fine grain analysis of the type of critical errors. Our study aim to describe the errors produced by older adults from the dementia continuum (AD, MCI and older adults living in the community with no dementia) when performing IADL. More specifically, our objectives are to understand: (1) What are the main types of errors occurring during IADL and (2) When are these errors more likely to occur. Method We conducted a performance based IADL assessment with older adults (n = 24), including 7 with AD, 8 with MCI, and 9 without dementia. We used the IADL Profile[1], which is a standardized assessment based on ecological observation of 8 IADL tasks. For each task, observations of performance are grouped into 4 operations: (1) formulate a goal, (2) plan, (3) execute, and (4) achieve the goal. Based on video recordings of the sessions, participants performances were transcribed into verbatim reports of all the errors that occurred. Deductive qualitative analysis and descriptive statistical analysis (standard deviation and correlation) were used to categorize/count the main type of errors for each task. Result Our results highlighted that (1) older adults make several errors while performing IADLs, with a higher occurrence according to the advancement along the dementia continuum and some of which may be crucial to the person’s independence; (2) the most frequent errors for all participants were in formulating a goal and in planning a task and (3) these errors are likely to occur during grocery shopping and meal preparation. Conclusion The fine grain analysis of errors during the performance of IADL allows us to better identify the needs of older adults from the dementia continuum that can service to guide the selection of effective strategies that can optimize their safety and functional independence. [1] Bottari et al. (2009)

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→