Using AI-Based Technologies to Help Nurses Detect Behavioral Disorders: Narrative Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) are common among people with dementia and have multiple negative consequences. Artificial intelligence-based technologies (AITs) have the potential to help nurses in the early prodromal detection of BPSD. Despite significant recent interest in the topic and the increasing number of available appropriate devices, little information is available on using AITs to help nurses striving to detect BPSD early. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to identify the number and characteristics of existing publications on introducing AITs to support nursing interventions to detect and manage BPSD early. METHODS: A literature review of publications in the PubMed database referring to AITs and dementia was conducted in September 2023. A detailed analysis sought to identify the characteristics of these publications. The results were reported using a narrative approach. RESULTS: A total of 25 publications from 14 countries were identified, with most describing prospective observational studies. We identified three categories of publications on using AITs and they are (1) predicting behaviors and the stages and progression of dementia, (2) screening and assessing clinical symptoms, and (3) managing dementia and BPSD. Most of the publications referred to managing dementia and BPSD. CONCLUSIONS: Despite growing interest, most AITs currently in use are designed to support psychosocial approaches to treating and caring for existing clinical signs of BPSD. AITs thus remain undertested and underused for the early and real-time detection of BPSD. They could, nevertheless, provide nurses with accurate, reliable systems for assessing, monitoring, planning, and supporting safe therapeutic interventions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".