Interest of a Hospital-Based Geriatric Living Lab among Inpatients with Neurocognitive Disorders: The ALLEGRIA Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objectives of this study were to determine the participation rates, levels of engagement, and abilities to answer User eXperience (UX) questionnaires according to the presence and severity of major neurocognitive disorders (MNCD) among participants involved in gerontechnological experimentations within a hospital-based geriatric clinical living lab. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis examining all consecutive geriatric patients involved in the Allegro living lab experimentations, separated according to the presence and severity of MNCD. Participation rates were assessed using the "Task-Based Experiment"-type User eXperience (TBE-UX). Participation was considered successful if patients fully completed the TBE-UX experimental procedure. Engagement level was characterized using a five-point scale: interactive, constructive, active, passive, and disengaged. The abilities to answer UX questionnaires were characterized using a five-point scale from "no completion" to "completion in autonomy." RESULTS: 313 patients were included. All patients without MNCD and with mild MNCD fully completed the TBE-UX procedures. Their engagement behaviors were rather active and constructive. All patients without MNCD and 88% of those with mild MNCD were able to fully complete the UX questionnaires. 96.2% of the patients with moderate MNCD fully followed the TBE-UX procedures. Their engagement behaviors were mainly active or passive. 64.2% were able to fully complete the UX questionnaires. 76.5% of the patients with severe MNCD fully followed the TBE-UX procedures. Their engagement behaviors were mainly passive or disengaged. 35.3% were able to fully complete the UX questionnaires. CONCLUSION: Living lab experimentations appear feasible with older adults, even with those with MNCD. Task support can be offered to those with severe MNCD.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".