Adolescents’ knowledge regarding Alzheimer’s disease is declining: An international study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To improve school-based mental health literacy programs, we assessed adolescents’ familiarity with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). We investigated the frequency of their contact with AD and their knowledge of the disorder. This comparative international randomized prospective study involved high school-based samples from eight countries (sample type: simple random; sampling unit: school/class). The questionnaire checked the contacts with persons with AD and had 10 statements to be labeled as true or false. The study was carried out among randomly selected 14,000 students from 2019 to 2023; 3,608 students indicated a lack of knowledge about AD (total n = 17,608). About 52% of the participants (n = 7,287) contacted persons with AD. With a maximum score of 10, the average score was 6.2 ± 0.9. The scores varied from 5.2 (Kazakhstan) to 7.0 (Australia). If the whole cohort of 17,608 students is analyzed, the average score was 5.1 ± 1.2 and varied from 3.6 for Kazakhstan to 6.1 for Australia. These scores declined from 2019–20 to 2023–24 school years. Although high school students had some knowledge about AD, existing educational programs may be amended to improve knowledge about the disorder, which may include information about the epidemiology, the possibility for early onset, and the female sex as a risk factor.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".