Mild Dementia or Cognitive Impairment: The Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS) as a Screen for Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS) as a screen for dementia. METHOD: A group of 1092 elderly Edmonton community residents completed the 3MS and the Geriatric Mental State Examination (GMS). 3MS sensitivity and specificity were determined by comparing positive 3MS screens (score < or = 77) with those classified as GMS "organic" (severity level 3, equivalent to a clinical diagnosis). In the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA), 2914 subjects received the 3MS and a clinical examination. A group described as having "cognitive impairment but no dementia (CIND)" was identified. RESULTS: In Edmonton, the 3MS showed 88% sensitivity, 90% specificity, 29% positive predictive value (PPV), and 99% negative predictive value (NPV). In the CSHA, 30% of subjects receiving both the 3MS and a clinical examination were classified as CIND. One-half of these were classified as having "age associated memory impairment (AAMI)" or as "unspecified." CONCLUSIONS: The 3MS with a cutting score of 77/78 proved a reasonable screening instrument; 1 case in 3 screening "positive" has dementia, but few (0.64%) will be missed by screening "negative." CIND, accounting for 2 out of 3 cases screened positive by the 3MS in the Edmonton study, is a substantial, heterogeneous group that is not necessarily "predementia" but that in many cases merits further investigation.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".