MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109008102 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afp198

The underdetection of cognitive impairment in nursing homes in the Dublin area. The need for on-going cognitive assessment

2009· article· en· W2109008102 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Suzanne Cahill, Ana Diaz‐Ponce, Robert F. Coen, Cathal Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth Service Executive
KeywordsMedicineCognitive impairmentNursing homesCognitionDementiaNursingGerontologyPsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sampling of NHs:\nAll general private and voluntary NHs belonging to the former Irish Health Service Executive East Coast Area (Dublin Mid-Leinster) were sampled. Three areas, namely 1, (Dun Laoire), 2 (Dublin South East) and 10 (Wicklow) which represent the former East Coast Eastern Regional Health Authority provided the sampling frame. Four of the 53 NHs were randomly selected. The chance of a NH being sampled was directly proportional to its size.\n\nSampling of residents:\nThe total capacity of the four NHs was 187 beds, and at the time of study, 174 beds were occupied. A sample of 100 residents was randomly drawn, 25 from each NH. Over-sampling occurred at each facility to allow for refusals (please see Appendix 1 in the supplementary data available on the journal website at http://www.ageing.oxfordjournals.org). Only 18 residents or their next of kin refused participation. The MMSE was administered to all 100 residents.\n\nEthical considerations:\nEthical approval was granted by Trinity College Dublin. Informed consent was obtained in all NHs, and proxy consent got for those residents known to lack capacity.\n\nInstruments:\nThe MMSE was used to assess CI [14]. When used for screening purposes, a cut score of 23/24 is conventionally used for detection of significant impairment. In contrast when the intention is to classify CI severity as was the case in this study, Folstein et al. recommendations were followed, i.e. normal cognitive function = 27?30, mild CI (MCI) = 21?26, moderate CI = 11?20 and severe CI = 0?10.\n\nResidents who scored within the normal ranges (MMSE ? 27) were re-assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). The MoCA test is a screening instrument for the detection of mild CI. It was developed to discriminate individuals between mild CI and normal cognitive function [15]. The MoCA test scores 0?30 points. Scores of 26 or above are considered normal. Where residents were classified on the MMSE as severely impaired (MMSE ? 10), a proxy appraisal (the Dementia Screening Scale, DSS) was completed [The DSS total score varies between 0 and 14 with higher scores indicating worse CI [8]]. Using a Likert scale (no impairment, mild, moderate and severe), Directors of Nursing (DONs) perception of resident's cognitive status was also assessed.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations46
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207