Sensitivity of the Mini-Mental State Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III to everyday activity impairments in dementia: an exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is one of the most frequently used cognitive measures for dementia severity and linked to deficits in everyday functioning. Recently, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III (ACE-III) increasingly substitute for the MMSE. However, there are no specific cutoffs in the ACE-III for mild dementia. The objectives of this exploratory study were to assess the sensitivity of each scale to everyday functioning and to examine the cutoffs between mild and moderate dementia on the ACE-III. METHODS: People with mild dementia completed the MMSE, MoCA and ACE-III, whilst informal carers completed the Revised Interview for Deteriorations in Daily Living Activities for Dementia to rate their relative's initiative and performance of instrumental activities of daily living and the Katz activities of daily living scale. Data were analysed using correlation analysis, raw score comparisons, Cohen's kappa and receiver operating characteristics analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-three dyads completed the measures. The ACE-III was the most sensitive tool for everyday functioning performance, whilst its language subscale was specifically related to initiation of activities. The most suitable cutoff on the ACE-III between mild and moderate dementia was 61. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest the ACE-III more efficiently identifies everyday functional impairments. Further research is required to confirm these exploratory analyses of the cutoff between mild and moderate dementia on the ACE-III. Both functional impairment and stage of dementia are needed in the diagnostic process and in the clinical assessment of people with dementia. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".