FP4 Screening for Cognitive Deficits Using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment tool in Older Patients Attending a Heart Function Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Evidence suggests that older patients living with heart failure (HF) are at an increased risk for cognitive deficits. Cognitive impairment in HF patients is associated with increased mortality, repeat hospitalization and poor quality of life. Previous studies utilized instruments that were not sensitive to mild cognitive deficits, or they used test batteries that are too time-consuming for patients and difficult to implement in usual clinical practice. The purpose of this pilot study was to determine the presence of cognitive deficits in older HF patients using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (Mo CA), a brief and sensitive screening instrument recommended by the Canadian Stroke Network for assessing cognition in patients with vascular disease. Methods: Cross-sectional descriptive study using the Mo CA in HF patients ≥65 years of age attending an outpatient HF clinic. Patients were excluded if cognitive deficits had been previously documented in their medical record, resided in a long term care facility, were unable to communicate in English, or did not pass a visual and whisper test prior to Mo CA administration. A Mo CA score of ≥26/30 denotes intact cognition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".