MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024079549 · doi:10.1080/113803390490510998

Correcting the 3MS for Bias Does Not Improve Accuracy When Screening for Cognitive Impairment or Dementia

2004· article· en· W2024079549 on OpenAlexaffabout
Megan E. O’Connell, Holly Tuokko, Roger E. Graves, Helena Kadlec

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaNormativeCognitive impairmentPsychologyPercentileReceiver operating characteristicCutoffRegressionAudiologyCognitionRegression analysisGerontologyDevelopmental psychologyStatisticsPsychiatryMedicineInternal medicineDiseaseMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the effects of correcting for demographic biases on the sensitivity and specificity of the Modified Mini Mental Status Exam (3MS) using a sample of English-speaking older adults (N=8901) from the Canadian Studies of Health and Aging. The sensitivity and specificity of the original 3MS were compared to the 3MS regression-adjusted for the influence of demographic variables and then to 3MS percentiles based on published normative data with age and education corrected cutoff scores. According to receiver operating characteristic curve analyses, the regression-adjusted 3MS was no more accurate than the original 3MS when screening for dementia, and it was less accurate when screening for cognitive impairment. The use of 3MS percentiles based on normative data with age and education corrected cut-off points were less accurate than the original 3MS when screening for both cognitive impairment and when screening for dementia.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations24
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical and Experimental NeuropsychologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207