How are Brain Health Interventions Implemented in Clinical Settings Internationally? – A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background It is estimated that 40% of dementia cases worldwide may be linked to potentially modifiable risk-factors. Evidence suggests multidomain interventions targeting a number of these risk factors can help prevent and delay the development of cognitive decline. However, the optimal way to deliver these interventions in clinical practice is less clear. We conducted a scoping review to explore the implementation of brain health interventions in a clinical setting. Methods A scoping review methodology was chosen to allow the consideration of publications from sources outside the confines of a systematic review. A search was conducted and applied to four databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINHAL, PsychInfo. Grey literature in the form of National Dementia Policy Documents were also considered for inclusion. Publications related to the delivery of brain health interventions in a clinical setting available in English were included, while multidomain interventions delivered for research purposes only were excluded. Results were dual-screened, extracted by two independent reviewers, and reported in line with PRISMA-scr guidelines. Results Of 3,035 results, 2,109 remained following de-duplication. Fifty full-text records were screened, with 4 citations referring to 2 clinical services included in the review. The first service (Alzheimer’s Prevention Clinic (APC), Cornell and Puerto Rico) was established in 2013 while the second (Brain Health Scotland) established a clinical service in 2023. Both accept self-referrals and healthcare provider referrals and are distinct from existing memory clinic service models. Both services offered cognitive testing along with risk factor assessment. A detailed suite of interventions offered to patients in the APC was outlined targeting cardiovascular, lifestyle and nutritional risk factors. The clinical interventions offered in the Brain Health Scotland clinical service were not documented. Conclusion Within the limitations of the search strategy, there is a paucity of available information on existing, operational brain health intervention clinics, particularly those linked to memory assessment services.
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 | 0.055 | 0.233 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".