Сравнительная характеристика скрининговых шкал для определения когнитивных нарушений
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper describes the results of the comparative analysis of three cognitive screening scales: Mini-Mental state examination (MMSE), Mini-Cog test, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Neuropsychological examination was conducted in 25 patients with cerebrovascular diseases. It was found out that the performance of Mini-Cog test took 3 minutes approximately, while MMSE 10 minutes, and MoCA 13-15 min. The duration of the test impact the level of fatigue and exhaustion of patients. The results of Mini-Cog test do not depend on the initial level of education, culture and language. However, this test was the least sensitive and could only diagnose severe and moderate cognitive impairment. Among the advantages of MMSE were the possibility to determine the level of cognitive impairment according to the number of points and its higher sensitivity compared to Mini-Cog test. The most sensitive screening test was MoCA, but up to now formalized system of this test evaluation does not give possibility to rank the severity of cognitive impairments, according to the number of points. Thus, the results of the research show that the neuropsychological methods should be selected taking into account the clinical situation and the conditions in which it is conducted. This comparative analysis of cognitive screening scales can be used in the preparation of diagnostic search for effective verification of the early changes in the intellectual and mental functions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.024 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".