MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367320337 · doi:10.1186/s12877-023-03933-y

Differences in the longitudinal change of behaviours related to dementia in long-term care: a growth mixture modelling approach

2023· article· en· W4367320337 on OpenAlexaff
Annie Robitaille, Linda Garcia, Graciela Muñiz‐Terrera

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Geriatrics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaHealth Canada
FundersOsteopathic Heritage Foundation
KeywordsDementiaLong-term careActivities of daily livingCognitionMedicineGerontologyPsychological interventionRehabilitationDevelopmental psychologyPsychologyPsychiatryPhysical therapyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is still a need for more information about the different trajectories of responsive behaviours that people living with dementia present in long-term care homes (LTC). OBJECTIVE: This study identified subgroups of individuals with similar trajectories of responsive behaviours related to dementia in LTC and evaluated the role of demographic variables, depressive symptomatology, social engagement, cognitive functioning, and activities of daily living (ADL) on class membership. METHODS: Growth mixture models were run using data from the Continuing Care Reporting System. RESULTS: Results suggest that change in responsive behaviours is best represented by seven classes of trajectories. The largest class was composed of individuals who presented the lowest frequency of behaviours upon entry in LTC that increased at a slow linear rate. The other classes were composed of individuals who presented different frequencies of behaviours upon entry in LTC and varying rates of change (e.g., individuals who presented a low frequency of behaviours upon entry in LTC that increased at a linear rate followed by a decrease in the later months, individuals who presented a high frequency of responsive behaviours upon entry in LTC and that remained stable). Cognitive functioning, social engagement, depressive symptomatology, and ADL were markers of class membership. CONCLUSIONS: These findings can help identify individuals at increased risk of presenting a high frequency of responsive behaviours and highlight interventions that could decrease behaviours in LTC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GeriatricsSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207