Correlational Analysis of 5 Commonly Used Measures of Cognitive Functioning and Mental Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are numerous measures for detecting the presence of dementia and quantifying its severity and progression. We analyzed the relations between scores on 5 commonly used measures (Mini-Mental State Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale, Activities of Daily Living Scale, and Global Deterioration Scale) of 101 successive admissions to a memory clinic. Patients were included in the analysis only if they received a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathophysiological process or probable AD and if they received all measures. Regression analysis yielded 20 linear equations that allow for conversion between test scores on any 2 measures. Further, participants were grouped by MMSE scores with regard to level of disease severity, allowing for the creation of a quick reference table for estimating an approximate score range between measures. Results from this study provide a useful tool for clinicians when comparing between multiple different instruments that measure the mental status and functional ability of individuals with AD and MCI due to AD pathology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".