MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406224591 · doi:10.1002/alz.089615

Development of the Canadian Coalition for Seniors' Mental Health Canadian Guidelines on the Assessment and Management of Behavioural and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia

2024· article· en· W4406224591 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stacey Hatch, Jennifer Watt, Marie‐Andrée Bruneau, Vivian Ewa, Sid Feldman, Yael Goldberg, Zahra Goodarzi, Nathan Herrmann, Debbie Hewitt Colborne, Alexandre Henri‐Bhargava, Zahinoor Ismail, Julia Kirkham, Sanjeev Kumar, Krista L. Lanctôt, Wade Thompson, J. M. Porter, Dallas Seitz

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of British ColumbiaSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreHotchkiss Brain InstituteBaycrest HospitalNorthern Ontario Academic Medicine AssociationUniversity of TorontoCollege of Family Physicians of CanadaOntario Brain InstituteInstitute of AgingUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMental healthPsychologyGerontologyPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia (BPSD) are common, can be distressing for persons living with dementia (PLWD), and challenging for caregivers and clinicians. There are few updated clinical practice guidelines available to assist clinicians with the assessment and management of BPSD, including deprescribing of medications. The Canadian Coalition for Seniors’ Mental Health (CCSMH) developed Canadian clinical practice guidelines on the assessment and management of BPSD to address these needs. Methods We used the Guideline International Network process for development of the BPSD guidelines. A multidisciplinary guideline panel was formed including representatives from geriatric psychiatry, geriatric medicine, family medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and psychology. Surveys identified priority topic areas for the guidelines. A review of existing guidelines, systematic reviews and primary evidence reviews was undertaken to identify evidence to create the guideline recommendations. The guideline panel members framed guideline questions using the PICO format (patient, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Guideline recommendations were created using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool and assigned a strength of recommendation (strong or conditional) and quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, and very low). The final guideline recommendations were voted on by the guideline panel with consensus considered to be 80% agreement. Results The guideline panel met a total of 14 times. A total of 74 recommendations reached consensus and were included in the guideline. These included recommendations on general principles of BPSD assessment and management, BPSD diagnosis, detection, and pharmacological and non‐pharmacological management of BPSD syndromes. The following topic areas and recommendations per topic were: general principles of BPSD assessment and management (n = 11), agitation (n = 30), psychosis (n = 5), depression and depressive symptoms (n = 13), anxiety (n = 6), sexual expressions with associated risk (n = 4), and deprescribing (n = 5). Conclusions The CCSMH Canadian Guidelines on the Assessment and Management of BPSD provide healthcare providers with recommendations based on current evidence from a Canadian context. These guidelines will help inform care for the growing number of people living with dementia who may be affected by BPSD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.121
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.121
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0170.012
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0100.005
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→