DYSPHAGIA MANAGEMENT CONTRIBUTES TO BURDEN IN CAREGIVERS OF PERSONS WITH DEMENTIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Providing care for persons with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) comes with significant physical and psychosocial costs. Crucially underexplored in its contribution to caregiver burden is dysphagia (swallowing impairment), which occurs in up to 93% of persons with ADRD and contributes to increased morbidity and mortality. The current study aimed to quantify dysphagia’s contribution to general burden among family caregivers of individuals with ADRD. A total of 110, predominately female (79.1%), family caregivers were recruited (mean age 55.8±15.9). Multiple measures of dysphagia severity were considered, including caregiver-reported dysphagia severity (Eating Assessment Tool [EAT-10]) and degree of diet modification (International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative – Functional Diet Scale [IDDSI-FDS]). General caregiver burden was measured via the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI). To examine which variables were unique predictors of burden, dysphagia-related variables as well as demographic (caregiver age, sex, employment status, education; care recipient relationship, age, sex) and disease variables (caregiver-reported diagnosis, severity, duration) were all entered simultaneously in a multiple regression analysis. Preliminary regression results indicated that higher ZBI scores were associated with caregivers who reported higher IDDSI-FDS scores (β =.26, p =.0364), identified as female (β =.25, p =.0450), were the spouse of the care recipient (β =.45, p =.0125), and reported shorter disease duration (β =.29, p =.0072). Findings highlight that aspects of managing dysphagia may independently contribute to caregiver burden, particularly in the context of continued oral intake. Thus, inquiry about dysphagia status should be considered in disease management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".