MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007043259 · doi:10.1159/000368808

Reliability of the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination in the Context of a Two-Phase Community Prevalence Study

2014· article· en· W2007043259 on OpenAlex
Gina Bravo, Réjean Hébert

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroepidemiology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsHôpital d'Youville de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContext (archaeology)Reliability (semiconductor)Mini–Mental State ExaminationMental stateDementiaInterviewPsychiatryClinical psychologyGerontologyInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data collected through the Canadian Study of Health and Aging were analyzed to estimate the reliability of the Modified Mini-Mental State (3MS) Examination when used in the context of a two-phase community prevalence study. During the screening phase of the study, subjects were tested in their home by a lay interviewer, either in English or French. All subjects scoring 77 or under on the 3MS and a sub-sample of those scoring over 77 were reassessed by a nurse during a clinical examination, following which subjects were classified as normal, cognitively impaired but not demented, or demented. Results indicate substantial reproducibility of the 3MS, slightly higher than that of the Mini-Mental State Examination from which it is derived. The english versions of these tests appear slightly more reproducible than their French counterparts.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it