MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2209399555 · doi:10.1017/s1041610215001635

Cognitive assessment tools in Asia: a systematic review

2015· review· en· W2209399555 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Roshaslina Rosli, Maw Pin Tan, William K. Gray, Pathmawathi Subramanian, Ai‐Vyrn Chin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Psychogeriatrics · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Malaya
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentDementiaCINAHLCochrane LibraryCognitionMEDLINEMini–Mental State ExaminationCognitive impairmentCognitive testMedicinePsychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryMeta-analysisPsychological interventionPathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of dementia is increasing in Asia than in any other continent. However, the applicability of the existing cognitive assessment tools is limited by differences in educational and cultural factors in this setting. We conducted a systematic review of published studies on cognitive assessments tools in Asia. We aimed to rationalize the results of available studies which evaluated the validity of cognitive tools for the detection of cognitive impairment and to identify the issues surrounding the available cognitive impairment screening tools in Asia. METHODS: Five electronic databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Science Direct) were searched using the keywords dementia Or Alzheimer Or cognitive impairment And screen Or measure Or test Or tool Or instrument Or assessment, and 2,381 articles were obtained. RESULTS: Thirty-eight articles, evaluating 28 tools in seven Asian languages, were included. Twenty-nine (76%) of the studies had been conducted in East Asia with only four studies conducted in South Asia and no study from northern, western, or central Asia or Indochina. Local language translations of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were assessed in 15 and six studies respectively. Only three tools (the Korean Dementia Screening Questionnaire, the Picture-based Memory Intelligence Scale, and the revised Hasegawa Dementia Screen) were derived de novo from Asian populations. These tools were assessed in five studies. Highly variable cut-offs were reported for the MMSE (17-29/30) and MoCA (21-26/30), with 13/19 (68%) of studies reporting educational bias. CONCLUSIONS: Few cognitive assessment tools have been validated in Asia, with no published validation studies for many Asian nations and languages. In addition, many available tools display educational bias. Future research should include concerted efforts to develop culturally appropriate tools with minimal educational bias.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0140.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.393 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations80
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational PsychogeriatricsSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207