Reliable change scores and their relation to perceived change in memory: Implications for the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relation between the subjective report of memory problems and objective evidence of the same has been debated with mixed results appearing in the literature. Less is known about the relation between objective change in test performance and the perceptions of cognitive change from family members/friends and trained clinicians. These relations were explored using 5-year longitudinal data from the population-based Canadian Study of Health and Aging. Statistically reliable deterioration in memory test performance was determined using a standardized regression-based (SRB) approach and a Reliable Change Index (RCI) that accounts for aging and practice effects. Among a subsample of persons with no cognitive impairment (NCI) at baseline, there was a moderate relation between reliable test score decline and ratings made by clinicians and informants. No relation, however, was found with the subjective reports of memory difficulties. These findings hold implications for current mild cognitive impairment (MCI) criteria which include subjective, informant and/or clinician ratings of cognitive decline.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".