MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107128407 · doi:10.1017/s1041610207005467

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)

2007· article· en· W2107128407 on OpenAlexaff
Cíntia Fuzikawa, Maria Fernanda Lima‐Costa, Elizabeth Uchôa, Kenneth I. Shulman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Psychogeriatrics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrelationMini–Mental State ExaminationCohortMedicineReceiver operating characteristicCognitive impairmentCut-offTest (biology)PsychologySample (material)GerontologyCognitionClinical psychologyAudiologyPsychiatryMathematicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations29
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational PsychogeriatricsSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207