Nurse‐led cognitive screening model for older adults in primary care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The present study aimed to establish a nurse-led cognitive screening model for community-dwelling older adults with subjective memory complaints from seven communities in Chongqing, China, and report the findings of this model. METHODS: Screenings took place from July 2012 to June 2013. Cognitive screening was incorporated into the annual health assessment for older adults with subjective memory complaints in a primary care setting. Two community nurses were trained to implement the screening using the Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment. RESULTS: Of 733 older adults, 495 (67.5%) reported having subjective memory complaints. Of the 249 individuals who participated in the cognitive screening, 102 (41%) had mild cognitive impairment, whereas 32 (12.9%) had cognitive impairment. A total of 80 participants (78.4%) with mild cognitive impairment agreed to participate in a memory support program. Participants with cognitive impairment were referred to specialists for further examination and diagnosis; only one reported that he had seen a specialist and had been diagnosed with dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating cognitive screening into the annual health assessment for older adults with subjective memory complaints was feasible, though referral rates from primary care providers remained unchanged. The present study highlights the urgent need for simple screenings as well as community-based support services in primary care for older adults with cognitive or mild cognitive impairments.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".