Correlation and agreement between the Mini-mental State Examination and the Clock Drawing Test in older adults with low levels of schooling: the Bambuí Health Aging Study (BHAS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to determine the correlation and agreement between the Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE) and Clock Drawing Test (CDT), administered and scored using Shulman's method (2000), in elderly Brazilian adults with very low levels of formal education. METHODS: CDT and MMSE tests, performed by a sample of 1118 elderly subjects from a population-based cohort, were evaluated. Spearman's correlation coefficient was calculated for the total sample and according to gender, age and schooling level. Agreement was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: CDTs with high scores had high corresponding MMSE scores whereas CDTs with low scores had a wide range of corresponding MMSE scores. Correlation was moderate (rho=0.64) and no difference was found according to gender, age or schooling level. For CDT cut-off 3/4, the best MMSE cut-off was 27/28 and agreement between tests was 75.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Correlation between tests was moderate. Subjects who performed well on the CDT could be expected to obtain high MMSE scores. Although one test does not substitute for the other, the CDT may be more practical in developing countries where resources are limited and low education is common in the elderly, as well as in situations where time for assessment or screening is limited. Moreover, the CDT may be sensitive to cognitive domains not assessed by the MMSE.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".