The CareVirtue Digital Journal for Family and Friend Caregivers of People Living With Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias: Exploratory Topic Modeling and User Engagement Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As Alzheimer disease (AD) and AD-related dementias (ADRD) progress, individuals increasingly require assistance from unpaid, informal caregivers to support them in activities of daily living. These caregivers may experience high levels of financial, mental, and physical strain associated with providing care. CareVirtue is a web-based tool created to connect and support multiple individuals across a care network to coordinate care activities and share important information, thereby reducing care burden. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to use a computational informatics approach to thematically analyze open text written by AD/ADRD caregivers in the CareVirtue platform. We then explore relationships between identified themes and use patterns. METHODS: We analyzed journal posts (n=1555 posts; 170,212 words) generated by 51 unique users of the CareVirtue platform. Latent themes were identified using a neural network approach to topic modeling. We calculated a sentiment score for each post using the Valence Aware Dictionary and Sentiment Reasoner. We then examined relationships between identified topics; semantic sentiment; and use-related data, including post word count and self-reported mood. RESULTS: We identified 5 primary topics in users' journal posts, including descriptions of specific events, professional and medical care, routine daily activities, nighttime symptoms, and bathroom/toileting issues. This 5-topic model demonstrated adequate fit to the data, having the highest coherence score (0.41) among those tested. We observed group differences across these topics in both word count and semantic sentiment. Further, posts made in the evening were both longer and more semantically positive than other times of the day. CONCLUSIONS: Users of the CareVirtue platform journaled about a variety of different topics, including generalized experiences and specific behavioral symptomology of AD/ADRD, suggesting a desire to record and share broadly across the care network. Posts were the most positive in the early evening when the tool was used habitually, rather than when writing about acute events or symptomology. We discuss the value of embedding informatics-based tools into digital interventions to facilitate real-time content delivery.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".