Use of Clinical Dementia Rating in Detecting Early Cognitive Deficits in a Community-based Sample of Chinese Older Persons in Hong Kong
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With increasing demand for dementia care in the Chinese community, there is a pressing need to identify practical and valid assessment tool for early detection of dementia. In a sample of 473 randomly recruited community-dwelling Chinese older persons aged 60 or above, we evaluated the cognitive characteristics of subjects with Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) of 0.5. The cognitive profiles of CDR 0.5 subjects were compared with standard clinical criteria for mild cognitive impairment. The Alzheimer's disease assessment scale-cognitive subscale and list learning delay recall test scores were between -1 and -2 SD below the cutoff for clinically not-demented subjects (CDR 0). Concordance between CDR 0.5 and mild cognitive impairment classifications were related to educational level of the subjects. A higher agreement was found in subjects having >6 years of education than subjects having <or=2 years of education (85.2% vs. 53.8%) (chi2=35.41, df=2, P<0.0001). The results suggested that CDR is able to identify mild but significant cognitive impairment in the Chinese community. The use of CDR suggested that attention should be paid to local cultural characteristics. With the use of cognitive evaluation, special adjustments are required to fit the performance of the respondents with different educational background.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".