Clinical Utility of the Mini-Mental Status Examination When Assessing Decision-Making Capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objectives of this study were to examine the relationship between cognitive deficits, as measured by the Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE), and decision-making capacity and to determine whether the sensitivity and specificity of the MMSE varied based upon the patient population assessed. Using a sample size of 152 patients and varying cutoff scores, the MMSE demonstrated extremely poor sensitivity. In contrast, the MMSE had excellent specificity when scores of 19 or less were obtained. In our sample, not one patient, regardless of diagnosis, was deemed to have capacity if their MMSE score was below 20. However, reliance on the MMSE for scores above 19 would too frequently lead to misclassification and incorrect assumptions about a patient's decision-making abilities. Although a score below 20 consistently yielded findings of incapability in our sample, it remains our opinion that the MMSE should not be used as a stand-alone tool to make determinations related to capacity, especially when considering the complexities associated with capacity evaluations and the vital areas, such as executive functioning and individual values and beliefs, which are omitted 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 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 | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".