Understanding the challenges faced by dementia researchers: Findings from a global survey on capacity building
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Different global initiatives aim to support researchers in their fields of study. World Young Leaders in Dementia (WYLD) is an international organization dedicated to connecting and supporting young professionals in the dementia field. One of its missions is to promote the development of leadership skills through capacity building. This concept encompasses five key areas: education and training, funding and investment, infrastructure development, collaborations and networking, and community engagement. Understanding researchers' working and academic conditions is the first step toward implementing targeted interventions to foster their growth. The aim of this work is to describe the main challenges faced by dementia researchers globally. METHOD: A comprehensive survey was designed to gather insights from dementia researchers, exploring demographic information and five key domains of capacity building. It was disseminated through WYLD's membership list and partnerships with dementia-focused organizations (e.g., ISTAART Professional Interest Areas, International Neuropsychological Society Special Interest Groups). A preliminary analysis was performed, focusing on education and training as well as funding and investment. RESULT: The participants (n = 125) were primarily women (69%) residing in low- and middle-income countries (75.2%). Among respondents, only 39% hold full-time academic positions, and just 20% dedicate 100% of their professional time to academia. A 65% report that the scientific system in their country is either underdeveloped or not prioritized as public policy. Furthermore, 93.7% state that funding sources-including salaries, grants, travel scholarships, and other forms of support-are scarce or nonexistent for early-career researchers. However, 62.4% reported receiving specialized training in dementia, and 65.6% stated their groups provide regular learning opportunities. Finally, the primary barriers to leadership development were: limited financial resources, limited infrastructure, and low visibility and recognition. Figure 1 summarizes the main results. CONCLUSION: The findings underscore significant challenges faced by dementia researchers. Limited financial resources, inadequate infrastructure, and low visibility and recognition remain critical barriers to leadership development and professional growth. Nevertheless, many researchers reported access to specialized training and regular learning opportunities within their groups, providing a foundation for strengthening capacity-building initiatives. Closing these gaps through targeted interventions is crucial to fostering the next generation of leaders in dementia research.
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 | 0.017 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".