Health Fluctuations in Dementia and its Impact on the Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life Using the EQ-5D-5L
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To quantify health fluctuations, identify affected health-related quality of life (HRQoL) dimensions, and evaluate if fluctuations affect the HRQoL instruments recall period adherence in people living with dementia (PlwD). METHODS: Caregivers of PlwD completed a daily diary for 14 days, documenting if PlwD's health was better or worse than the day before and the affected HRQoL dimensions. Health fluctuation was categorized into low (0-4 fluctuations in 14 days), moderate (5-8), and high (9-14). Also, caregivers and PlwD completed the EQ-5D-5L (proxy- and self-reported) on days 1, 7, and 14. Subsequently, caregivers were interviewed to determine whether recurrent fluctuations were considered in the EQ-5D-5L assessment of today's health (recall period adherence). RESULTS: Fluctuations were reported for 96% of PlwD, on average, for 7 of the 14 days. Dimensions most frequently triggering fluctuations included memory, mobility, concentration, sleep, pain, and usual activities. Fluctuations were associated with higher EQ-5D-5L health-states variation and nonadherence to the EQ-5D-5L recall period "today." PlwD with moderate to high fluctuation had the highest EQ-5D-5L utility change between day 1 and 14 (0.157 and 0.134) and recall period nonadherence (31% and 26%) compared with PlwD with low fluctuation (0.010; 17%). Recall period nonadherence was higher in PlwD with improved compared with those with deteriorated health in the diary (37% vs 9%). CONCLUSIONS: Health fluctuations frequently occur in dementia and strongly affect HRQoL assessments. Further research is needed to evaluate if more extended recall periods and multiple, consecutive assessments could capture health fluctuations more appropriately in dementia.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
| opus | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | medium |
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 | 0.080 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".