MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415993037 · doi:10.3390/jcm14217889

Bridging Dementia Care in Japan: The Emerging Role of General Medicine Physicians

2025· article· en· W4415993037 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Takao Yamasaki

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaBridging (networking)WorkforceHealth careConceptual frameworkNarrative reviewDiseasePublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As global populations age, dementia has become a major public health challenge that warrants sustainable, person-centered, and community-integrated models of care. In Japan, the recent introduction of board-certified general medicine (GM) physicians, trained across both family medicine and hospital general medicine, has created an opportunity to strengthen dementia care through improved continuity and coordination. This narrative review conceptually examines the emerging role of GM physicians within Japan's Community-Based Integrated Care System and compares this evolving model with dementia care structures in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. By synthesizing policy documents and published literature, this review outlines how GM physicians can serve as integrative actors bridging outpatient and inpatient care, collaborating with dementia specialists, Initial-phase Intensive Support Teams, and Community-based Comprehensive Support Centers to enhance person-centered support throughout the disease trajectory. While empirical outcome data remain limited, this conceptual framework highlights potential contributions of GM physicians to early detection, care transitions, and interdisciplinary collaboration in dementia care. However, challenges persist, including training variability, workforce shortages, and systemic fragmentation. By situating Japan's experience within an international context, this review provides a conceptual basis for future empirical studies and policy development aimed at strengthening generalist-led dementia care in aging societies.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.410 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→