Socially Assistive Robots for patients with Alzheimer's Disease: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The most common form of dementia, Alzheimer's Disease (AD), is challenging for both those affected as well as for their care providers, and caregivers. Socially assistive robots (SARs) offer promising supportive care to assist in the complex management associated with AD. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a scoping review of published articles that proposed, discussed, developed or tested SAR for interacting with AD patients. METHODS: We performed a scoping review informed by the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist for reporting the results. At the identification stage, an information specialist performed a comprehensive search of 8 electronic databases from the date of inception until January 2022 in eight bibliographic databases. The inclusion criteria were all populations who recive or provide care for AD, all interventions using SAR for AD and our outcomes of inteerst were any outcome related to AD patients or care providers or caregivers. All study types published in the English language were included. RESULTS: After deduplication, 1251 articles were screened. Titles and abstracts screening resulted to 252 articles. Full-text review retained 125 included articles, with 72 focusing on daily life support, 46 on cognitive therapy, and 7 on cognitive assessment. CONCLUSION: We conducted a comprehensive scoping review emphasizing on the interaction of SAR with AD patients, with a specific focus on daily life support, cognitive assessment, and cognitive therapy. We discussed our findings' pertinence relative to specific populations, interventions, and outcomes of human-SAR interaction on users and identified current knowledge gaps in SARs for AD patients.
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 | 0.014 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".