MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025167559 · doi:10.1177/1533317507304744

Can You Have Dementia With an MMSE Score of 30?

2007· article· en· W2025167559 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jonah Shiroky, Hyman M. Schipper, Howard Bergman, Howard Chertkow

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Alzheimer s Disease & Other Dementias® · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlzheimer Society
KeywordsDementiaMemory clinicMedicineMini–Mental State ExaminationNeuropsychologyChartCognitionDiseasePsychologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the possibility that a patient with a diagnosis oF probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) can still obtain a score oF 30/30 on the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE). DESIGN: Chart review. Setting. The McGill University/Jewish General Hospital Memory Clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were selected From the Memory Clinic's patient database. All underwent comprehensive evaluations, including relevant blood work and a computed tomographic scan or a magnetic resonance imaging scan oF the brain to rule out other causes oF dementia. MEASUREMENTS: All patients had one or more neuropsychological evaluation. Data oF all psychometric testing, including the MMSE, were gathered From these visits. Results. Eight patients were Found to meet the criteria oF AD although achieving a score oF 30/30 on the MMSE. Four oF 8 patients achieved this score although they were taking cholinesterase inhibitors. CONCLUSION: Although rare, it is possible to achieve a score oF 30/30 on the MMSE even iF a subject is suFFering From a dementing illness.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations55
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Alzheimer s Disease & Other Dementias®Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207