MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390193427 · doi:10.1002/alz.075036

Contributors to sleep disturbances in caregivers and care recipients with dementia

2023· article· en· W4390193427 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carol A. Manning, Anna E Youngkin, Mark Quigg

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActigraphyDementiaSleep disorderPolysomnographyCognitionSleep (system call)PsychologyAudiologySleep onset latencyMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineSleep onsetClinical psychologyPhysical therapyPsychiatryCognitive impairmentInsomniaDiseaseInternal medicineElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Sleep disturbances in Alzheimer’s disease impact people with dementia (PWD) and caregivers (CGS) who have primary responsibility for care provision. However, it is unknown which aspects of dementia including cognitive decline and behavioral disturbance contribute most to sleep disturbances in patients and caregivers. This pilot study aims to discover what contributes most to sleep deficits, and whether these factors are consistent across both PWD and CGS. Method Patients: Six dyads with PWD and their primary CGS. Cognitive/behavioral variables: the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (PWD) and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI‐Q) completed by CGS. Polysomnography: recorded and scored for 1 night for each dyad member separately. Actigraphy: Wrist actigraphy recorded for 14 days in both members of the dyad divided into fixed rest (2200‐0600) and activity (0600‐2200) periods. Sleep variables: total sleep time (TST), sleep onset latency (SOL), nighttime activity as measured by actigraphy. Result Preliminary results indicate that severity of cognitive dysfunction measured by the MoCA correlates with sleep time (CG r = 0.6224, PWD r = 0.5421). However, presence of neuropsychiatric symptoms and caregiver distress as measured by the NPIQ correlate with sleep onset latency (CG r = 0.9432*, PWD r = 0.7819) and nighttime activity in both CGs and PWD (CG r = 0.8467, PWD r = 0.8708). * = p<0.05. Conclusion This pilot study of six PWD/CGS dyads examines the relationship between cognition, behavioral disturbance, CGS response to the behavioral disturbance, and sleep. This data indicates that sleep disturbances in PWD and their CGs cannot be explained exclusively by worsening cognitive function and likely have stronger dependence on the neuropsychiatric well‐being of the PWD and CGS emotional response. This dyadic model is unique in that it looks at the interdependence of the PWD/CGS dyad using both objective measures of sleep, cognition, and behavioral disturbance as well as subjective CGS stress. Data from additional dyads is currently being collected to increase the sample size along with the inclusion of additional variables in order to increase understanding of the relationship between PWD characteristics, caregiver burden and sleep disturbances.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicSleep and related disorders→French-language works237,207→