Alternativas instrumentales para la exploración cognitiva breve del adulto mayor: más allá del Minimental Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduccion: en Cuba, la esperanza de vida al nacer supera actualmente los 77 anos. Esta realidad trae consigo un incremento exponencial en el numero de adultos mayores que son diagnosticados con un sindrome demencial. Uno los instrumentos de screening cognitivo mas conocido y utilizado es el Minimental Test A pesar de su extendido uso, desde hace mas de dos decadas se sugiere la necesidad de emplear otras herramientas en lugar del tradicional Minimental, aludiendo entre otras razones dificultades estructurales y problemas psicometricos. Objetivo: realizar una valoracion critica del Minimental y ofrecer una panoramica general de instrumentos alternativos de screening cognitivo que pueden emplearse en la practica clinica y que superan las limitaciones del Minimental Test. Conclusiones: el empleo del Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised , el Montreal Cognitive Assessment , y el INECO Frontal Screening seria de inestimable valor para el personal medico que tiene bajo su responsabilidad la atencion de adultos mayores en todos los niveles de atencion, superando con su uso las multiples limitaciones que presenta el Minimental Test.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".