Findings from the National Memory Screening Day Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To report experience with a large, nation-wide public memory screening program. DESIGN: Descriptive study of community-dwelling elderly adults. SETTING: Local community sites (48 sites agreed to provide data) throughout the United States participating in National Memory Screening Day in November 2010. PARTICIPANTS: Of 4,369 reported participants, 3,064 had complete data records and are included in this report. MEASUREMENTS: Participants completed a questionnaire that included basic demographic information and a question about subjective memory concerns. Each site selected one of seven validated cognitive screening tests: Mini-Cog, General Practitioner assessment of Cognition, Memory Impairment Screen, Kokmen Short Test of Mental Status, Mini-Mental State Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Saint Louis University Mental Status Examination. RESULTS: Overall, 11.7% failed one of the seven screening tests. As expected, failure rates were higher in older and less-educated participants (P's < .05). Subjective memory concerns were associated with a 40% greater failure rate for persons of similar age and education but no memory concerns (odds ratio = 1.4, 95% confidence interval = 1.07-1.78), although only 11.9% of those who reported memory concerns (75% of all participants) had detectible memory problems. CONCLUSION: Screening for cognitive impairment in community settings yielded results consistent with expected effects of age and education. The event attracted a large proportion of individuals with memory concerns; 88.1% were told that they did not have memory problems detectible with the tests used. Further studies are needed to assess how participants respond to and use screening information, whether this information ultimately influences decision-making or outcomes, and whether memory screening programs outside healthcare settings have public health value.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".