Inclusion of informant ratings of cognitive difficulties improves the accuracy of the MMSE in predicting Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tierney MC, Herrmann N, Geslani DM, et al . Contribution of informant and patient ratings to the accuracy of the Mini-Mental State Examination in predicting probable Alzheimer’s disease. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003;51:813–18.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q Is the accuracy of predicting Alzheimer’s disease improved by incorporating patient and informant ratings of cognitive difficulties into the Mini-Mental State Examination? ### ![Graphic][5] Design: Prospective longitudinal study. Assessors blinded to baseline scores. ### ![Graphic][6] Setting: University teaching hospital, Toronto, Canada; timeframe not specified. ### ![Graphic][7] People: 165 people referred by their family physician for suspected memory impairment. People meeting criteria for dementia were excluded. ### ![Graphic][8] Test: Mini-Menal State Examination (MMSE), taken at enrolment and at 2 years follow up. ### ![Graphic][9] Diagnostic standard: 19 item rating scale from section H of the Cambridge Mental Disorders Examination (CAMDEX), taken at … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJournal%2Bof%2Bthe%2BAmerican%2BGeriatrics%2BSociety%26rft.stitle%253DJ%2BAm%2BGeriatr%2BSoc%26rft.aulast%253DTierney%26rft.auinit1%253DM.%2BC.%26rft.volume%253D51%26rft.issue%253D6%26rft.spage%253D813%26rft.epage%253D818%26rft.atitle%253DContribution%2Bof%2Binformant%2Band%2Bpatient%2Bratings%2Bto%2Bthe%2Baccuracy%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bmini-mental%2Bstate%2Bexamination%2Bin%2Bpredicting%2Bprobable%2BAlzheimer%2527s%2Bdisease.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1046%252Fj.1365-2389.2003.51262.x%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12757568%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1046/j.1365-2389.2003.51262.x&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12757568&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F7%2F1%2F8.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000183049200011&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif
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 | 0.011 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".