Utilité clinique de trois outils d'évaluation pour les personnes atteintes de démence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational therapists are increasingly involved in the diagnostic process of cognitive impairment in the elderly. PURPOSE: Three tools designed to facilitate the evaluation process were examined in order to document their diagnostic qualities and the nature of the association between their results: the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Protocole d'examen cognitif de la personne âgée (PECPA-2r) and the Système de mesure de l'autonomie fonctionnelle (SMAF). METHODS: A cross-sectional correlative study was used in order to document the association between the results obtained with the three tools when they were used with aging adults referred to the project by their attending physician. RESULTS: Fifty-two older adults with a suspected cognitive impairment participated in the study. The results of the study indicate that a strong correlation exists between the scores obtained with the three evaluation tools. The MMSE scores would be an excellent predictor of the PECPA-2r and the SMAF scores. The degree of cognitive impairment would be a good predictor of the degree of impairment of the autonomy. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Referring physicians found some of the evaluators' observations made during the administration of the PECPA-2r and the SMAF particularly useful for their subsequent diagnostic processes. The shorter administration time for the MMSE did not provide for such observations, while the PECPA-2r and the SMAF allowed more time for these kinds of observations. Occupational therapists are invited to examine carefully their intentions when choosing their evaluation tools.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".