MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012379767 · doi:10.1017/s1041610202008001

Reliable Individual Change Scores on the 3MS in Older Persons With Dementia: Results From the Canadian Study of Health and Aging

2001· article· en· W2012379767 on OpenAlexaffabout
José A. Correa, Anne Perrault, Christina Wolfson

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Psychogeriatrics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaIntraclass correlationConfidence intervalInter-rater reliabilityGerontologyMedicineCognitionPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychometricsPsychiatryRating scaleDiseaseDevelopmental psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the degree of interrater agreement on the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS), administered both in the home and at the clinical examination, to determine the boundaries of reliable individual changes for 257 community-dwelling older persons who received a diagnosis of dementia at CSHA-1. Individual score differences were approximately normally distributed (mean of differences 0.2; SD 8.0; 95% confidence interval -16 to 16). The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.85. Except for the language of testing, there was no relationship between score differences and the determinants investigated (i.e., age, education, type and severity of dementia). This study provides evidence that, in a time frame compatible with no change in cognition, the discrepancy between repeat 3MS scores can be as large as +/- 16. These limits represent the range of variability consistent with no change and should be considered when interpreting individual change scores.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational PsychogeriatricsSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207