IPA survey of brief cognitive screening instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cognitive screening is a "first step" in detecting dementia and other neuropsychiatric syndromes and hence represents an important public health and clinical initiative. A plethora of cognitive screening instruments has been advocated in recent years, but the extent to which these instruments are used or their effectiveness is not well known. An International Psychogeriatric Association (IPA) survey was designed to determine which cognitive screening instruments were used most frequently by clinicians with special expertise in the neuropsychiatric aspects of old age and also to determine the ones considered most useful by these specialists. METHOD: Under the auspices of the IPA, the survey was mailed in the fall of 2004 to all IPA members as well as members of the American and Canadian Associations of Geriatric Psychiatry. The survey inquired about demographic information, the frequency of use of cognitive screening instruments, and the value attributed to the cognitive screening instruments. Participants also had an opportunity to provide written commentary. RESULTS: A total of 334 completed surveys were processed. The majority of respondents were geriatric psychiatrists (58%). Of the 20 different instruments that were listed on the survey, only six were selected as "routinely" or "often used" by the survey respondents. These instruments in declining order were: (1) the Folstein Mini-mental State Examination; (2) the Clock Drawing Test; (3) Delayed Word Recall; (4) the Verbal Fluency Test; (5) Similarities; and (6) the Trail Making Test. "Effectiveness" and "ease of administration" were the test characteristics most highly predictive of frequency of use. Open-ended comments highlighted patient factors that continue to provide challenges, including ethnicity/culture, language, education/literacy, and sensory impairment. Respondents concluded that "no single test is adequate." CONCLUSIONS: Psychogeriatricians worldwide routinely use a relatively small number of brief cognitive screening instruments. Further evaluation is necessary as the need increases for cognitive screening guidelines that inform public health initiatives related to dementia and neuropsychiatric syndromes.
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 | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".