MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050328465 · doi:10.1136/ebn.4.1.24

The Hopkins Verbal Learning Test had high sensitivity and good specificity for detecting mild dementia in older people

2001· article· en· W2050328465 on OpenAlexaff
Norma J. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDementiaWeb of scienceInternal medicinePediatricsPsychiatryGynecologyMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207