Personalized Integrated Care Promoting Quality of Life for Older People: Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alzheimer disease (AD) and Parkinson disease (PD) are the 2 most common neurodegenerative diseases affecting millions of people worldwide. The Personalized Integrated Care Promoting Quality of Life for Older People (PC4L) project proposes an integrated, scalable, and interactive care ecosystem that can be easily adapted to the needs of several neurodegenerative and chronic diseases, care institutions, and end user requirements. OBJECTIVE: The study protocol developed within the framework of the PC4L project aims to iteratively test the integrated platform and its modules, and focuses primarily on assessing the impact of the proposed solution (ie, the PC4L platform) on patients' quality of life, as well as its usability and feasibility on a large-scale sample size in 3 different scenarios (home, neurorehabilitation, and day care centers). METHODS: A prospective multicenter clinical study is conducted in 5 European countries (Germany, Italy, Portugal, Romania, and Spain) at 6 different pilot centers, for 3 months, in patients with PD, Parkinsonism, AD, and other dementias (ODs). Patients were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 to the intervention group (use of the PC4L system) or the control group (no intervention). The PC4L system consists mainly of a wristband for monitoring parameters such as steps and levels of physical activity, and the PC4L app, which includes different engaging functionalities. Both groups are assessed through baseline and end-of-study clinical evaluations, including assessment of quality of life through the EQ-5D-3L scale. RESULTS: The study protocol is part of a project approved and funded by the European Commission Horizon 2020 (grant agreement number 875221). The ethics committees of all involved centers reviewed and approved the study protocol. The study began with the recruitment phase in September 2022, and enrollment ended in February 2023. Recruitment is now closed (April 2023). The results of this study are expected to be published in summer 2023. A total of 558 patients, 279 per study group, were recruited. The results will allow to clarify the impact of PC4L on quality of life, will assess the empowerment of patients and the medical resources use, as well as the usability of the final version of the PC4L system. It will also provide information on the support of the system as a tool to facilitate the decision-making process. CONCLUSIONS: The PC4L project intends to test a technology-based, integrated, scalable, and interactive care platform on patients with neurodegenerative diseases and proposes a good coordinated care model between all involved actors. Future developments of the PC4L solution may involve caregivers and socio-health professionals in the decision-making process in order to facilitate efficient communication between all stakeholders and ensure reliable and protected access to data within Europe. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05538455; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05538455. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/47916.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.007 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".