Evaluation of Cognitive Functioning in the Context of Rehabilitation for Visual Impairment in Older Adults: A Case Series
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: As the risk of visual impairment increases with age, so does the risk of developing cognitive impairment. Detection of cognitive deficits in people with visual impairments is a challenge and it remains unclear to what extent cognitive issues impact daily habits and the rehabilitation process. The present study aimed to (1) verify the consistency between the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (“Blind” versions) and the therapist's observations of elderly individuals in low-vision rehabilitation (LVR), and (2) document how cognitive difficulties may influence LVR and the satisfactory carrying-out of life habits. Methods: Six elderly individuals who received LVR completed the MMSE and MoCA (“Blind” versions) and Assessment of Life Habits (LIFE-H). The therapist rated the achievement of rehabilitation objectives, clients' cognitive functioning and its impact on the rehabilitation process. Results: All participants obtained scores within the normative score range for both tests except for one participant on the MoCA. The therapist perceived that four out of six participants had cognitive difficulties significant enough to hinder the rehabilitation process and these persons required more adaptations to therapy. All participants were satisfied with their life habits despite remaining functional limitations and the need for assistance. Conclusions: In this sample, standardized cognitive tests had limited utility to predict the complexity of LVR. Even if present, cognitive difficulties do not preclude rehabilitation for even severe visual impairment in elderly persons and does not imply significantly longer or more intense rehabilitation.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it