French-English Cross-Linguistic Comparison and Diagnostic Impact of the AD-8 Dementia Screening Questionnaire in a Geriatric Assessment Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The AD-8 dementia screening questionnaire is a novel tool that allows clinicians to assess changes in cognitive function. This study examined psychometric properties of the test in French-speaking and English-speaking patients, and its impact on diagnostic practice in the geriatric assessment clinics of a university health centre. Data were extracted from the clinical database for all new patients screened for cognitive impairment 15 months before (historic control group) and 15 months after the introduction of the test (AD-8 group and concurrent control group). Analysis of differential item functioning revealed formal equivalence of the French- and English-language items, supporting the validity of the French version. Respondent type significantly influenced the total score on the AD-8. Concurrent validity with other cognitive screening tests was moderately high. Finally, among patients who did not present with pre-existing dementia, a higher proportion of dementia diagnoses was made in those administered the AD-8 relative to the concurrent control group. Implications for clinical use of the AD-8 are discussed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".