Diminished preparatory physiological responses in people with dementia: associations with caregiver health and relationship quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Emotional impairments in people with dementia can be taxing for family caregivers. However, caregivers differ in their resilience to these challenges. We previously found that, compared to healthy controls and people with Alzheimer's disease, people with frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) have smaller physiological responses when anticipating upcoming emotional stimuli. This impairment may leave these people with FTLD unprepared for upcoming emotional stimuli because they cannot mount responses needed for appropriate behaviors, which may create stress and difficulties for caregivers. We examined (a) whether smaller preparatory physiological responses in people with dementia are associated with lower emotional well-being and physical functioning in caregivers; and (b) whether these associations are moderated by the dyads' relationship quality. METHODS: A total of 158 individuals with FTLD or Alzheimer's disease and their family caregivers participated. Preparatory physiological responses in people with dementia were quantified as decreases in cardiac interbeat intervals from baseline to an instruction period, during which they were told they would be watching an upcoming emotional film. Caregivers self-reported their emotional well-being, physical functioning, and relationship quality with the people with dementia. RESULTS: Smaller preparatory physiological responses in people with dementia were associated with lower emotional well-being (but not physical functioning) in caregivers. This association was moderated by relationship quality (i.e., weakened for caregivers in higher-quality relationships). DISCUSSION: Findings advance understanding of risk and resilience factors for negative caregiver outcomes. Positive interpersonal processes in high-quality relationships (e.g., positive appraisal of aberrant behaviors) may buffer caregivers from the impact of emotional impairments in people with dementia.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".