[P2–270]: ALABAMA BRIEF COGNITIVE SCREENER SCORES CORRELATE WITH CLOCK DRAWING SCORING SCALE IN ALZHEIMER's DISEASE AND DEMENTIA WITH LEWY BODIES IN A MEMORY DISORDERS CLINIC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine how scores on the Alabama Brief Cognitive Screener (ABCs), a cognitive screening instrument for physician use, relate to scores on the Rouleau Clock Drawing Scoring Scale (RCS), in patients attending an academic Memory Disorders Clinic. Following IRB approval, data were obtained from the electronic medical record for all patients with a clinician's diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (331.0) and Dementia with Lewy Bodies (331.82) at the UAB Memory Disorders Clinic from 4/30/2012 to 4/30/2015. ABCs and RCS data were available on 76 patients diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease (mean age 75) and 34 patients diagnosed with Dementia with Lewy Bodies (mean age 72). The correlation between the scores on both tests was calculated. Additionally, mean ABCs scores were compared by Kruskal Wallis tests between the two groups. ABCs and RCS scores showed a moderate strength correlation across all patients (Spearman Correlation Coefficient=0.69). This correlation persists for each diagnosis individually, r=0.68 for AD and r=0.71 for DLB. Mean ABCs scores were 17.0 for subjects with AD and 20.3 for subjects with DLB (χ2=6.1; P=0.013). Mean RCS scores were 5.43 for AD and 5.76 for DLB; no statistical difference was observed between the 2 diagnoses. The predicted relationship between the performance on the ABCs and RCS was established. The RCS did not differentiate between groups. Mean ABCs scores were significantly higher among DLB patients suggesting the ABCs may be more sensitive to AD than DLB. Since the scoring distribution of the ABCs is similar to that of the MiniMental State Exam, our findings are consistent with prior observations that the Montreal Cognitive Assessment is better suited for identifying cognitive impairment associated with parkinsonism. These findings further support the utility of the ABCs for assessing cognitive impairment for common diagnoses among patients attending a Memory Disorders Clinic for dementia-related conditions.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.005 |
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".