MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383311951 · doi:10.1192/bjo.2023.385

Optimising and Future-Proofing Dementia Care With Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment (aMCI) Clinics

2023· article· en· W4383311951 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Smit Kishorbhai Raninga, Brenda Wasunna‐Smith, Alice Millward, Kerry Rees, Tarun Kuruvilla

Bibliographic record

VenueBJPsych Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMemory clinicNeuropsychologyMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPsychologyNeuropsychological assessmentCognitionPsychiatryCognitive declineMedicineCognitive impairmentDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment (aMCI) is considered a pre-dementia (prodromal) phase of Alzheimer's disease (AD), with a higher probability in patients with positive biomarkers (temporo-parietal region, atrophy on CT/MRI imaging and hypometabolism on FDG-PET scan).We developed a pilot service development project in the North Sector of Gloucestershire Health and Care (GHC) Trust. Its’ main aim was to ease some of the pressures on the Memory Assessment Service (MAS) nurses and the medical memory clinics. The main objectives were: 1. To develop and run an aMCI Clinic service for eight months between March and November 2022 at GHC with North Sector patients to reduce waiting times compared to the preceding years. 2. In patients with aMCI and a positive biomarker, continue annual cognitive testing with early identification of conversion to dementia, thereby starting anti-dementia medication, and continue through the post-diagnosis pathway. Future plans include creating a business case for the Care Commission Group to consider commissioning a countywide aMCI service. Methods Patients (n=23) with the diagnosis of aMCI and a positive biomarker were selected. Data included the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) to assess patients’ daily functioning, clinical history and service satisfaction questionnaires. Different initial objective tests, including Addenbrookes Cognitive Examination (ACE-III), Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (R-BANS), Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS), and Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) were used. Data for waiting times from referral to first assessment were collected and statistically analysed using a repeated measures design across years 2020,2021,2022(March-November) and a one-way repeated measure ANOVA was performed. Results Analysis of waiting time indicated a non-significant decrease in waiting times from referral to first assessment. A decrease in the waiting times from September 2022-November 2022 was noted, pointing towards a possible time lag effect. Within six to twelve months of repeat testing, 62% of patients remained with an aMCI diagnosis whereas 32% of patients progressed to dementia (Alzheimer's or Vascular). From the post-appointment patient feedback received (65%), all patients reported to be very satisfied (57%) or satisfied (9%). Conclusion It is prudent to assess the time lag effect on the results produced in subsequent months. A repeat review with a larger sample size to increase the sensitivity and specificity of the results obtained is recommended.

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 score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJPsych OpenSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207