MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163632555 · doi:10.1177/0145482x1010400606

Sensitivity and Specificity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Modified for Individuals who are Visually Impaired

2010· article· en· W2163632555 on OpenAlexaffabout
Walter Wittich, Natalie A. Phillips, Ziad Nasreddine, Howard Chertkow

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visual Impairment & Blindness · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsHôpital Charles-Le MoyneJewish General HospitalConcordia UniversityUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentVisually impairedCognitionSensitivity (control systems)AudiologyPsychologyVisual impairmentCognitive impairmentCutoffCognitive testClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineOptometryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evaluating the cognitive status of individuals who are visually impaired is limited by the design of the test that is used. This article presents data on the sensitivity and specificity of the version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for people who are visually impaired. The original validation data were reanalyzed, excluding the five visual items. The results indicated that the specificity was excellent, while sensitivity was reduced; however, the recommended proportionally adjusted cutoff values showed better sensitivity.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.347 · 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

Citations242
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visual Impairment & BlindnessSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207