A scoping review of post-diagnostic dementia supports for people with intellectual disability
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: People with intellectual disability, particularly people with Down syndrome, are at an increased risk for early-onset dementia, in comparison to people without an intellectual disability. The aim of this review was to scope the current landscape of post-diagnostic dementia supports for people with intellectual disability. Method: A systematic search of five electronic databases (CINAHL, Medline, PsycArticles, PsycInfo and Web of Science) was conducted for this scoping review. Results were screened independently by two reviewers, with a third reviewer for arbitration where necessary. Results: Forty-two studies met the inclusion criteria, and relevant information was extracted. The articles included focussed on the experiences of people with intellectual disability and dementia, as well as the role of carers, family members and staff. Key themes included ageing in place, environmental supports for people with intellectual disability and dementia, dementia-specific interventions and therapies, as well as the feasibility of these interventions. Besides the studies that focussed on these themes, other studies focussed on staff training and family supports. Conclusion: This review highlights the importance of implementing timely and appropriate post-diagnostic supports for people living with intellectual disability and dementia. More controlled trials are required on post-diagnostic dementia supports for people with intellectual disability.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.135 | 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 it