A pilot study of performance among hospitalised elderly patients on a novel test of visuospatial cognition: the letter and shape drawing (LSD) test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Conventional bedside tests of visuospatial function such as the clock drawing (CDT) and intersecting pentagons tests (IPT) are subject to considerable inconsistency in their delivery and interpretation. We compared performance on a novel test - the letter and shape drawing (LSD) test - with these conventional tests in hospitalised elderly patients. METHODS: The LSD, IPT, CDT and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were performed in 40 acute elderly medical inpatients at University Hospital Limerick The correlation between these tests was examined as well as the accuracy of the visuospatial tests to identify significant cognitive impairment on the MoCA. RESULTS: The patients (mean age 81.0±7.71; 21 female) had a median MoCA score of 15.5 (range=1-29). There was a strong, positive correlation between the LSD and both the CDT (r=0.56) and IPT (r=0.71). The correlation between the LSD and MoCA (r=0.91) was greater than for the CDT and IPT (both 0.67). The LSD correlated highly with all MoCA domains (ranging from 0.54 to 0.86) and especially for the domains of orientation (r=0.86), attention (0.81) and visuospatial function (r=0.73). Two or more errors on the LSD identified 90% (26/29) of those patients with MoCA scores of ⩽20, which was substantially higher than for the CDT (59%) and IPT (55%). CONCLUSION: The LSD is a novel test of visuospatial function that is brief, readily administered and easily interpreted. Performance correlates strongly with other tests of visuospatial ability, with favourable ability to identify patients with significant impairment of general cognition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".