Psychometric characteristics of the Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test (RBMT) as an early detection instrument for dementia and mild cognitive impairment in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test (RBMT) assesses everyday memory by means of tasks which mimic daily challenges. The objective was to examine the validity of the Brazilian version of the RBMT to detect cognitive decline. METHODS: 195 older adults were diagnosed as normal controls (NC) or with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or Alzheimer's disease (AD) by a multidisciplinary team, after participants completed clinical and neuropsychological protocols. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha was high for the total sample for the RBMT profile (PS) and screening scores (SS) (PS = 0.91, SS = 0.87) and for the AD group (PS = 0.84, SS = 0.85), and moderate for the MCI (PS = 0.62, SS = 0.55) and NC (PS = 0.62, SS = 0.60) groups. RBMT total scores, Appointment, Pictures, Immediate and Delayed Story, Immediate and Delayed Route, Delayed Message and Date contributed to differentiate NC from MCI. ROC curve analyses indicated high accuracy to differentiate NC from AD patients, and, moderate accuracy to differentiate NC from MCI. CONCLUSIONS: The Brazilian version of the RBMT seems to be an appropriate instrument to identify memory decline in Brazilian older adults.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".