MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7117311543 · doi:10.1002/alz70858_105632

Development and initial feasibility testing of an intergenerational cooking and nutrition program for persons with dementia and young adults: Preliminary results

2025· article· en· W7117311543 on OpenAlexaff
Kristina Devlin, Sheng Han Liu, Kate Dupuis, Marina Mourtzakis, Sherry L. Dupuis, Heather Keller

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsSheridan CollegeResearch Institute for AgingUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMEDLINEHealthy agingActivities of daily livingPhysical activity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Intergenerational programs provide an opportunity to connect generations. Currently, there are few community-based programs that combat dementia stigma, and few food-based opportunities for connecting community-dwelling persons living with dementia (PWD) with youth. Cooking Together is a collaboratively designed and tested intergenerational cooking and nutrition program. The aim of this study was to identify and develop components that would be meaningful and acceptable to potential end users (phase 1) and conduct a feasibility test (phase 2). METHOD: Phase 1 interviewed (n = 11) youth (14-19 years) and PWD and care partners dyads to inform design of the proposed program and identify potential benefits. The phase 2, 4-week prototype was tested with 15 participants, who had not participated in phase 1 development. Phase 2 participants included those from a dementia day program (n = 8), day program facilitators (n = 3), and youth (n = 4; 18-30 years). Data collection included participant observation notes (e.g., engagement, feasibility issues) and interviews (n = 10) focused on improvements, participant experience, and potential outcomes. Content analysis was used to summarize findings. RESULT: Findings from phase 1 identified important components to include in the prototype for phase 2 testing. For example, potential challenges included daytime scheduling for youth under 18 years. Suggested benefits included socialization for PWD, and dementia education for youth. The phase 2 prototype was found to be feasible. Participants identified potential outcome measures and feedback led to refinement of the model for future feasibility pilot testing. CONCLUSION: An intergenerational cooking and nutrition program for community-dwelling PWD and young adults (18-30 years) was created and a prototype demonstrated interest in the program and outcomes that should be measured.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→