MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2113475558 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2012.05.985

P2‐277: The clock drawing test: Normative data for the Portuguese population

2012· article· en· W2113475558 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Isabel Santana, Diana Duro, Lara Alves, Sandra Freitas, Mário R. Simões

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPsychologyDementiaCognitionClinical Dementia RatingPopulationMini–Mental State ExaminationTest (biology)Clinical psychologyAudiologyGerontologyMedicineCognitive impairmentPsychiatryDiseasePathologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Clock Drawing Test (CDT) was initially purposed to screen constructional abilities in subjects with suspected right parietal lesions but we now acknowledge its much more complex relation with other cognitive abilities, making it especially sensitive to multi-domain deficits typical of dementia. Despite its common use in clinical and investigational practices, no study has developed normative data for the Portuguese population, which makes its interpretations limited and subjective. We developed a normative study of the CDT using three scoring systems (Rouleau et al., 1994; Cahn et al., 1996; and Babins et al., 2008) and assessed their psychometric properties and relation to other brief cognitive tests. The normative sample is composed of a representative sample of cognitively healthy subjects aged 25 and older resident in Portugal continental areas. Cognitive and functional evaluation was performed using the CDT, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR). The study participants were stratified according to six demographic variables: gender, age, education, geographic localization, inland/coastal areas and residential area. We present the distribution of CDT scores using the three scoring systems. Statistical analyses were performed through the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS version 19.0) and included descriptive analyses, correlation coefficients, analysis of variance and covariance, and multiple linear regression. We assessed 630 subjects, 63.7% female. Mean MMSE result was 28.87 (±1.32) and mean MoCA result was 24.54 (±3.67). Both scores were significantly correlated with CDT performance on all scoring systems. CDT score presented a linear relation with both age and education, but not with any of the geographical variables studied. Of the three scoring systems studied the Babins et al. (2008) 18 point scoring system overall revealed the best psychometric properties. Normative data were developed considering both age and educational groups (Table 1). The three scoring systems were well correlated with each other and with cognitive screening tests widely used, and had good psychometric properties. Our results may be used in the future when developing adequate cut-off scores for mild cognitive impairment and dementia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→