MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399779771 · doi:10.1080/02687038.2024.2369247

Assessment of communication-related quality of life in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease

2024· article· en· W4399779771 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fenise Selin Karalı, Berfin Baydin, Nilgün Çınar

Bibliographic record

VenueAphasiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDiseaseQuality (philosophy)Quality of life (healthcare)GerontologyCognitive psychologyMedicinePsychotherapistInternal medicineEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Alzheimer’s Disease is a neurodegenerative condition that affects individuals’ cognition, attention, behavior and language skills. With disease progression, problems are also observed in individuals’ participation in social life. Our aim was to investigate communition-related quality of life in individuals with Alzheimer's Disease and their language abilities.Method In this study, data were collected from a total of 47 Alzheimer’s Disease patients between the ages of 55–85. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Aphasia Language Assessment (ADD), Aphasia Impact Questionnaire (AIQ-21) and Beck Depression tests were administered. The Alzheimer’s Disease Related Quality of Life (ADRQL) scale was administered to caregivers.Results and Conclusion As a result of the study, we found that there is a relationship between language and quality of life of individuals with Alzheimer’s Disease. The quality of life of individuals with Alzheimer’s Disease is affected in line with their language skills. In order to more thoroughly investigate this relationship, additional research should be conducted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAphasiologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207