MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378173452 · doi:10.1097/cnq.0000000000000466

Factors Associated With Function-Focused Care Among Hospitalized Older Adults Living With Dementia

2023· article· en· W4378173452 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara Resnick, Marie Boltz, Elizabeth Galik, Ashley Kuzmik, Brittany Drazich, Rachel McPherson, Chris Wells, Cindy Renn, Susan G. Dorsey, Jeanette Ellis

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Nursing Quarterly · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsDeliriumDementiaMedicinePsychological interventionIncidence (geometry)MEDLINENursing Interventions ClassificationPhysical therapyPsychiatryInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports a study that was designed to describe the incidence of pain among older hospitalized patients with dementia and to evaluate the factors that influence pain among these individuals. It was hypothesized that function, behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia, delirium, pain treatment, and patient exposure to care interventions would be associated with pain. Patients who performed more functional activities had less delirium. They also experienced higher quality-of-care interactions and were less likely to have pain. The findings from this study support the relationship between function, delirium, and quality-of-care interactions and pain. It suggests that it may be useful to encourage patients with dementia to engage in functional and physical activity to prevent or manage pain. This study serves as a reminder to avoid neutral or negative care interactions among patients with dementia as a strategy to mediate delirium and pain.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care Nursing QuarterlySame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207