MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321639610 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afab219.33

33 ARE CLINICAL TRIALS RANDOMISING HOUSEHOLDS TO LIFESTYLE INTERVENTIONS FOR THE PREVENTION OF COGNITIVE DECLINE FEASIBLE?

2021· article· en· W4321639610 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Costello, Colm McCarthy, Jackie Bosch, Scott T. Robinson, Michelle Canavan, Martin O’Donnell

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Wellbeing Research
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)MedicineGerontologyHarmCognitionCognitive declineQualitative researchClinical psychologyPsychologyPsychiatryDiseaseSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Dementia is increasing in prevalence worldwide. Several lifestyle factors have been identified as targets for dementia prevention, which may be more effective if targeted at households instead of an individual. To date there have been no clinical trials randomising households to lifestyle interventions of sleep, diet and/or physical activity to prevent cognitive decline. To inform future studies, qualitative approaches can give valuable in-depth insights into the values and beliefs of all household members towards behavioural change. Methods Semi structured interviews were carried out among eight households affected by cognitive impairment. Interview content was analysed, and important themes identified. Results Eighteen participants were interviewed within household pods. Among those, eight had cognitive impairment and the remainder were spouses or first-degree relatives living in the same home. Several themes of interest emerged including household members without dementia were more likely to report poor sleep habits; sleep was perceived the hardest behaviour to change; although most participants had healthy diets, most were interested in making a change and felt there was a strong link with nutrition and cognition; physical activity is challenging to adapt due to lack of motivation and focus when individuals are cognitively impaired and motivation to pursue physical activity in households centred on relaxation and social interaction. Conclusion This study identified beliefs and preferences of households towards lifestyle intervention trials. Barriers to study participation including risk of harm, complexity of intervention and deviation from routine emerged during discussions. Findings from this study should be used to inform future clinical trial protocols and future qualitative studies should explore acceptability and feasibility of digital intervention applications.

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)0.188
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.380
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1880.380
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.414
GPT teacher head0.602
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicHealth and Wellbeing ResearchFrench-language works237,207