Reliability and Validity of the Clinical Dementia Rating for Community-Living Elderly Subjects without an Informant
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale is widely used to assess cognitive impairment in Alzheimer's disease. It requires collateral information from a reliable informant who is not available in many instances. We adapted the original CDR scale for use with elderly subjects without an informant (CDR-NI) and evaluated its reliability and validity for assessing mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia among community-dwelling elderly subjects. METHOD: At two consecutive visits 1 week apart, nurses trained in CDR assessment interviewed, observed and rated cognitive and functional performance according to a protocol in 90 elderly subjects with suboptimal cognitive performance [Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) <26 and/or Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) <26] and without informants according to a protocol. CDR domains and global scores were assigned after the second visit based upon corroborative information from the subjects' responses to questions, role-play, and observed performance in specifically assigned tasks at home and within the community. RESULTS: The CDR-NI scores (0, 0.5, 1) showed good internal consistency (Crohnbach's α 0.83-0.84), inter-rater reliability (κ 0.77-1.00 for six domains and 0.95 for global rating) and test-retest reliability (κ 0.75-1.00 for six domains and 0.80 for global rating), good agreement (κ 0.79) with the clinical assessment status of MCI (n = 37) and dementia (n = 4) and significant differences in the mean scores for MMSE, MOCA and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (ANOVA global p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Owing to the protocol of the interviews, assessments and structured observations gathered during the two visits, CDR-NI provides valid and reliable assessment of MCI and dementia in community-living elderly subjects without an informant.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it