Computerized Cognitive Testing in Primary Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computerized cognitive assessment tools may facilitate early identification of dementia in the primary care setting. We investigated primary care physicians' (PCPs') views on advantages and disadvantages of computerized testing based on their experience with the Computer Assessment of Mild Cognitive Impairment (CAMCI). Over a 2-month period, 259 patients, 65 years and older, from the family practice of 13 PCPs completed the CAMCI. Twelve PCPs participated in an individual interview. Generally, PCPs felt that the relationship between them and their patients helped facilitate cognitive testing; however, they thought available paper tests were time consuming and not sufficiently informative. Despite concerns regarding elderly patients' computer literacy, PCPs noticed high completion rates and that their patients had generally positive experiences completing the CAMCI. PCPs appreciated the time-saving advantage of the CAMCI and the immediately generated report, but thought the report should be shortened to 1 page and that PCPs should receive training in its interpretation. Our results suggest that computerized cognitive tools such as the CAMCI can address PCPs' concerns with cognitive testing in their offices. Recommendations to improve the practicality of computerized testing in primary care were suggested.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".