AI in Elderly Care: Understanding the Implications for Independence and Social Interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to explore the implications of AI in elderly care, specifically its impact on enhancing independence and social interaction among the elderly. Additionally, it seeks to identify and analyze the ethical and privacy concerns, technological challenges, and the potential for personalization and customization in AI applications in elderly care settings. Employing a qualitative research design, this study collected data through semi-structured interviews with a purposively sampled cohort of 17 participants, including healthcare professionals specializing in geriatric care, caregivers using AI tools, and elderly individuals interacting with AI technologies. Thematic analysis was utilized to identify and interpret patterns within the data, leading to the delineation of five main themes and their respective categories and concepts. The analysis revealed five major themes: Impact on Independence, Enhancements in Social Interaction, Ethical and Privacy Concerns, Technological Challenges and Solutions, and Personalization and Customization in AI. Each theme encompasses several categories detailing specific implications of AI in elderly care, from supporting physical and cognitive autonomy to addressing concerns over data security and the potential for technology-driven bias. AI holds significant promise for improving elderly care by supporting independence and facilitating social interactions, yet its integration must be approached with caution to address ethical and privacy concerns. The successful implementation of AI in elderly care requires a balanced, human-centric approach that leverages technological advancements while ensuring they align with the needs and values of the elderly population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".