The Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment screen correlated with the Standardized Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale–cognitive section in clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive section and its standardized version (SADAS-cog) are the current standard for assessing cognitive outcomes in clinical trials of dementia. This study compares a shorter cognitive instrument, the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen, with the SADAS-cog as outcome measures in clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The SADAS-cog, Qmci, Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale, and the Lawton-Brady activities of daily living (ADL) scale were assessed at multiple time points, over 1 year in a multicenter randomized clinical trial of 406 patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's dementia. Correlations were estimated using regression at each time point, all time points, and mean values across time. Responsiveness was assessed using the standardized response mean (SRM). RESULTS: Regression for pooled time points showed strong and significant correlation between the SADAS-cog and Qmci (r = -0.75, P < 0.001). Correlations remained strong for mean values across time and at each time point. The SADAS-cog and Qmci also correlated with CDR and ADL scores. There was no difference in SRMs between the SADAS-cog and Qmci [t(357) = -0.32, P = 0.75]. CONCLUSION: The Qmci correlated strongly with the SADAS-cog and both were equally responsive to deterioration. We suggest that clinicians and investigators can substitute the shorter Qmci for the SADAS-cog.
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 | 0.136 | 0.276 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".