Screening for Cognitive Impairment and Dementia Among Older People in Custody: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the growing number of older and aging people in custody across many countries, and corresponding vulnerability for neurocognitive issues, there has been limited research into the efficacy of cognitive assessment and dementia screening tools in correctional settings. The purpose of this study was to synthesize recent empirical research investigating dementia (and cognitive impairment) in older people in custody using screening tools. A systematic review methodology was adopted, with reporting guided by the PRISMA framework. This included a systematic search of four databases (PsycINFO, MedLine, PubMed, and Academic Search Complete) and handsearching of reference lists of eligible studies. A total of 9 peer-reviewed publications were included. All studies were from high income countries, including the United States ( n = 2), Germany ( n = 2), Canada ( n = 1), England and Wales ( n = 2), Australia ( n = 1), and France ( n = 1). These studies were synthesized according to the following themes: (1) use of screening tools with modification for the correctional setting; (2) use of screening tools without modification for the correctional setting; and, (3) innovative advances in cognitive screening tools and practices for correctional settings. This review identified several cognitive assessment and dementia screening tools that have been used in custodial settings. These tools can help in the early identification of dementia (or cognitive impairment) among older people in custody and, thus, inform the initiation of supports and strategies to manage those at risk. More research is needed to evaluate the performance of these tools compared with a diagnostic assessment.
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 | 0.009 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".