MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389735024 · doi:10.1186/s12875-023-02229-9

Dementia and comorbidities in primary care: a scoping review

2023· review· en· W4389735024 on OpenAlex
Howard Bergman, Soo Borson, Frank Jessen, Pierre Krolak‐Salmon, Alessandro Pirani, J Rasmussen, Jesús Rodrigo, Daiana Taddeo

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Primary Care · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMEDLINEMedicineContext (archaeology)Cochrane LibraryMultidisciplinary approachComorbiditySystematic reviewScopusPrimary careFamily medicinePsychiatryAlternative medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: People with dementia (PwD) are known to have more chronic conditions compared to those without dementia, which can impact the clinical presentation of dementia, complicate clinical management and reduce overall quality of life. While primary care providers (PCPs) are integral to dementia care, it is currently unclear how PCPs adapt dementia care practices to account for comorbidities. This scoping review maps recent literature that describes the role for PCPs in the prevention, detection/diagnosis and management of dementia in the context of comorbidities, identifies critical knowledge gaps and proposes potential avenues for future research. METHODS: We searched for peer-reviewed literature published between 2017-2022 in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus using key terms related to dementia, primary care, and comorbidity. The literature was screened for relevance by title-abstract screening and subsequent full-text screening. The prioritized papers were categorized as either 'Risk Assessment and Prevention', 'Screening, Detection, and Diagnosis' or 'Management' and were further labelled as either 'Tools and Technologies', 'Recommendations for Clinical Practice' or 'Programs and Initiatives'. RESULTS: We identified 1,058 unique records in our search and respectively excluded 800 and 230 publications during title-abstract and full-text screening. Twenty-eight articles were included in our review, where ~ 50% describe the development and testing of tools and technologies that use pre-existing conditions to assess dementia risk. Only one publication provides official dementia screening guidelines for PCPs in people with pre-existing conditions. About 30% of the articles discuss managing the care of PwD, where most were anchored around models of multidisciplinary care and mitigating potentially inappropriate prescribing. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first scoping review that examines the role for PCPs in the prevention, detection/diagnosis and management of dementia in the context of comorbidities. Given our findings, we recommend that future studies: 1) further validate tools for risk assessment, timely detection and diagnosis that incorporate other health conditions; 2) provide additional guidance into how comorbidities could impact dementia care (including prescribing medication) in primary care settings; 3) incorporate comorbidities into primary care quality indicators for dementia; and 4) explore how to best incorporate dementia and comorbidities into models/frameworks of holistic, person-centred care.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.312 · 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