MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325243582 · doi:10.1111/1440-1630.12288

Could everyday technology improve access to assessments? A pilot study on the feasibility of screening cognition in people with Parkinson's disease using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment via Internet videoconferencing

2016· article· en· W2325243582 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tereza Stillerova, Jacki Liddle, Louise Gustafsson, Robyn Lamont, Peter A. Silburn

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Occupational Therapy Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelehealthCognitionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentFace validityPsychologyVideoconferencingPsychological interventionDiseaseMedicineTelemedicineGerontologyClinical psychologyHealth carePsychiatryMultimediaCognitive impairmentPsychometricsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The distances and distribution of people, and pressures on the health system in Australia mean that access to services for people living with a neurodegenerative condition may be inadequate. Telehealth may offer ways to provide timely and efficient monitoring and support. People with Parkinson's disease require regular screening of their symptoms and needs, but may have limited access to health professionals. Cognitive changes can impact on occupational performance, thus timely monitoring of cognition is important for informing occupational therapy interventions. AIM: To evaluate the feasibility of screening cognition in people with Parkinson's disease using available technology in their homes. METHOD: Eleven participants with Parkinson's disease completed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment face-to-face and then via videoconferencing one week later using the technology available at their home. Participants and assessors provided feedback on their experience. RESULTS: All Montreal Cognitive Assessment items could be completed over videoconference (e.g. Skype), with a median difference of 2 (IQR: 1-2.5) between face-to-face and videoconference scores. Higher scores were not favoured by either mode of assessment. Three participants received inconsistent cognitive classifications between the two assessment methods. Participant and assessor feedback indicated reported benefits including convenience as well as technological limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Given the pressures on the health system and the apparent acceptability to consumers, occupational therapists may explore the utility of readily accessible technology to enable timely monitoring of cognition for people with Parkinson's disease. Further research is needed to develop and demonstrate the reliability and validity of this approach.

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)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations71
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Occupational Therapy JournalSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207