Assessment of Memory in the Clinic: How Useful is Cued Recall? (P3.204)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of the 5-word recall subtest of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) to the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Task (FCSRT), an established neuropsychological measure of episodic memory. BACKGROUND: Much emphasis has been put on the value of the «amnestic syndrome of temporal medial type», with cueing efficiency the theoretical hallmark of this syndrome. The accessbility of specific tests such as FCRST is limited for most clinicians. The added benefit of the FCSRT cued recall score has not been compared to shorter, easily applied bedside memory tests. DESIGN/METHODS:This a retrospective cohort study based in a tertiary-care Memory Clinic, with inclusion of consecutive patients with complete standardized neuropsychological assessment. The 5-word free/cued recall subscores of the MoCA were extracted and correlated to the FCSRT free/cued recall scores. These scores were compared to assess their added benefit to the discrimination between 3 diagnostic groups. RESULTS: 96 consecutive subjects were included: 12 SCI (Subjective Cognitive Impairment), 37 MCI (Mild Cognitive Impairment) and 47 with dementia (including 40 with Alzheimer’s). The subscore of the MoCA free recall correlated strongly with the FCSRT delayed free recall (r= 0,592). Adding the cued recall or the multiple choice score to the 5-word test did not add significantly to the strength of the correlations with the FCSRT (free recall, cued recall or cueing efficacy). Various subscores (free/cued) of the FCRST did not discriminate better than the total free recall between the 3 diagnostic groups. CONCLUSIONS: A simple 5-word recall without cueing appears to correlate strongly to a formal 16-word neuropsychological test. Despite theoretical advantages of the cueing efficacy as an important factor to consider in memory assessment, we found that free recall remains the single most useful test. Study Supported by:
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".