Assisting general practitioners to screen for cognitive impairment: The General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition website
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is estimated that 6.5% of Australians older than 65 suffer from dementia. Yet, dementia is often underdiagnosed, for which general practitioners (GP), the primary source of medical care, blame lack of time and paucity of suitable screening instruments. To enhance GP diagnosis of dementia, we aimed to establish a website that provides (1) electronic versions of the General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition (GPCOG); (2) evidence-based guidelines on assessment and management to primary care practitioners; (3) an opportunity to assess the take-up rates and utility of the website and these aids. We conducted qualitative interviews with GPs to explore website requirements and an extensive literature research on available national and international guidelines for assessment and management of dementia patients in primary care. In total, 23 guidelines from 14 countries were found, of which 11 were suitable and have been made available on the website. The website, which can be accessed at www.gpcog.com.au, is free of charge, is available in several languages, and contains a very brief feedback questionnaire to evaluate the website's utility. Evaluation of the website is currently underway; results are expected in mid-2009. The multi-lingual website www.gpcog.com.au (funded by the Canadian National Institute for Care of the Elderly) makes a screening tool for cognitive impairment available to primary care workers worldwide. It provides health professionals with evidence-based guidelines and recommendations for further investigations that should be conducted once cognitive impairment is detected.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".