The Revised Kingston Standardized Cognitive Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The original Kingston Standardized Cognitive Assessment (KSCA) was designed to assess cognitive functioning in the elderly with suspected organic brain damage (i.e. dementia). It was specifically designed to be a relatively quickly administered assessment tool available to mental health professionals who were not trained in specialized cognitive assessment techniques. It was introduced over a decade ago to bridge a gap between brief, narrowly focused rating scales, and intensive, expensive, full neuropsychological assessments. Recently, a revision of the KSCA was completed. This revision includes the addition of a word-list memory task with immediate recall, delayed recall and recognition formats, as well as new norms for patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). The updated norms reflect the abilities of higher-functioning (community-dwelling) patients. In order to facilitate the Revised KSCAs use we have developed a new scoring and analysis form as well as a more comprehensive scoring and administration manual. These changes have resulted in better detection of earlier Alzheimer's disease and use of comparison groups that reflect the changing referral base. The structure of the revised scale and updated normative data are described. An illustrative clinical case example is also provided.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".