Research Priorities of Individuals and Caregivers With Lewy Body Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Lewy body dementia (LBD) is common, yet under-recognized and under-researched. To plan studies with the highest impact, engagement of the community personally affected by these conditions is essential. METHODS: A web-based survey of people living with LBD and current and former caregivers of people with LBD queried research priorities through forced ranking and exploration of burden of LBD symptoms. Specific caregiving needs in LBD and perceptions of research participation were also investigated. RESULTS: Between April 7, 2021 and July 1, 2021, 984 responses were recorded. Top research priorities included disease-modifying therapies and improved disease detection and staging. People with LBD were interested in pathophysiology and more bothered by motor symptoms; caregivers were interested in risk factors and symptomatic therapies and more bothered by neuropsychiatric symptoms. Few available LBD treatments and resources were rated as helpful, and many valuable services were never received. Previous participation in LBD research was infrequent, but interest was high. DISCUSSION: People with LBD and caregivers highlighted the need for research across all aspects of LBD, from pathophysiology and disease modification to prognosis, education, symptomatic treatments, and caregiver support. Funders should increase support for all aspects of LBD research to target the many needs identified by individuals and families living with LBD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".