MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413133346 · doi:10.3390/jdad2030026

Implementation of the Memory Support System for Individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Feasibility Survey Study

2025· article· en· W4413133346 on OpenAlexaffabout
Suraj Brar, Mirou Jaana, Octavio A. Santos, Nicholas Kassabri, Lisa Sweet, Frank Knoefel, Melanie Chandler, Atul Jaiswal, Neil Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of dementia and Alzheimer's disease · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalBruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaPsychologyCognitionCoping (psychology)Affect (linguistics)Context (archaeology)Memory clinicCognitive impairmentIntervention (counseling)GerontologyClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objectives: Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), a condition between normal aging and dementia, is characterized by cognitive changes that do not significantly affect instrumental activities of daily living. The Memory Support System (MSS), an evidence-based behavioral intervention developed by the Mayo Clinic, has been shown to aid those living with MCI and their support partners in coping with cognitive challenges. However, the MSS has not been offered clinically within the Canadian context. Therefore, we conducted a study assessing the feasibility of the MSS from the perspectives of individuals living with MCI and their support partners. Methods: Participants from an institutional registry of research participants, patients, and support partners at a memory clinic, as well as members of a local Dementia Society, were approached to complete an online or paper version of a survey assessing feasibility dimensions. Responses were compared between and within groups for differences in mean scores and associations between linked binary choice response questions. Results: A total of 77 responses were received; 39 surveys were completed by participants with MCI, and 38 by support partners. Respondents found the MSS to be acceptable and practical. On average, participants thought it would be more difficult to train in using the MSS than support partners. Both groups expressed interest in the intervention. On average, participants with MCI and support partners preferred virtual MSS training to in-person and indicated more interest in participating in training over six weeks as compared to two weeks. Conclusions: Flexibility in duration and format when offering the MSS are important considerations when offering the intervention as part of a clinical program. Future research should evaluate cost-effectiveness (e.g., financial, staff resources, etc.) of the MSS approach if it were to be institutionalized in the Ontario healthcare system.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of dementia and Alzheimer's disease→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→