The Hopkins Verbal Learning Test had high sensitivity and good specificity for detecting mild dementia in older people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frank RM, Byrne GJ. The clinical utility of the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test as a screening test for mild dementia. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry2000 Apr; 15 : 317 –24 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: Is the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (HVLT) a reliable and valid screening test for mild dementia in older people? How does it compare with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE)? Blinded comparison of HVLT and MMSE results with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder, fourth edition (DSM-IV) diagnoses of dementia (the diagnostic standard). The Geriatric Psychiatry Service of the Royal Brisbane Hospital and District Health Service, Australia. 56 patients (mean age 75 y, 63% women, mean education 8.5 y) participated. Exclusion criteria were age <65 years, hearing impairment, aphasia, MMSE score <18, insufficient English, or inability to consent. 3 experienced registered nurses blinded to patients' … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DInternational%2Bjournal%2Bof%2Bgeriatric%2Bpsychiatry%26rft.stitle%253DInt%2BJ%2BGeriatr%2BPsychiatry%26rft.aulast%253DFrank%26rft.auinit1%253DR.%2BM.%26rft.volume%253D15%26rft.issue%253D4%26rft.spage%253D317%26rft.epage%253D324%26rft.atitle%253DThe%2Bclinical%2Butility%2Bof%2Bthe%2BHopkins%2BVerbal%2BLearning%2BTest%2Bas%2Ba%2Bscreening%2Btest%2Bfor%2Bmild%2Bdementia.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1002%252F%2528SICI%25291099-1166%2528200004%252915%253A4%253C317%253A%253AAID-GPS116%253E3.0.CO%253B2-7%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F10767731%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/(SICI)1099-1166(200004)15:4<317::AID-GPS116>3.0.CO;2-7&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10767731&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F4%2F1%2F24.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000087295200004&link_type=ISI
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".