Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’examen des fonctions cognitives peut être abordé selon deux approches : l’une, quantitative, repose sur l’utilisation de tests de dépistage ; l’autre, qualitative, repose sur l’examen ciblé de chaque fonction. L’approche quantitative entre dans une démarche pragmatique : dépister rapidement un déficit qui pourra justifier la mise en place d’aides ou de traitements. Nous présenterons trois tests et leur valeur diagnostique : le test de l’horloge, le Mini Mental State Examination et le Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Cette approche permet aussi de sélectionner les patients chez qui détailler l’examen cognitif de façon à identifier la nature du déficit. Nous proposons une approche de l’examen cognitif détaillé au chevet du patient évaluant la vigilance, l’attention, la mémoire, le langage, les fonctions frontales, les praxies et rechercher un syndrome d’héminégligence. Cette approche simple permet de localiser la lésion cérébrale et suggère parfois la maladie responsable du trouble cognitif. The evaluation of cognitive functions can be performed using two approaches: a quantitative one, based on screening tools; a qualitative one, based on the examination of specific cognitive functions. The quantitative approach offers a pragmatic process: to screen rapidly for a cognitive dysfunction that may require assistance or treatments. We will present three screening tools and their diagnostic value: the clock test, the Mini Mental State Examination and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. They help select patients who require a more detailed examination to precisely diagnose their cognitive dysfunction. We propose a way to perform a detailed cognitive examination at the bedside, including the examination of alertness, attention, memory, language, frontal functions, praxis and hemi-neglect. This simple examination indicates the location of the cerebral lesion and sometimes suggests the underlying disease.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | medium |
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".