MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402996184 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afae178.256

How are Brain Health Interventions Implemented in Clinical Settings Internationally? – A Scoping Review

2024· review· en· W4402996184 on OpenAlexaff
Eimear Connolly, Aoife McFeely, Seán Kennelly

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueAge and AgeingSame topicHealth, Environment, Cognitive AgingFrench-language works237,207