Rating scales for cognition in Huntington's disease: Critique and recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive impairment is one of the main features of Huntington's disease and is present across the disease spectrum. As part of the International Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorder Society-sponsored project to review all clinical rating scales used in Huntington's disease, a systematic review of the literature was performed to identify cognitive scales used in Huntington's disease and make recommendations for their use. A total of 17 cognitive scales were identified and evaluated. None of the scales met criteria for a "recommended" status. For assessing severity of cognitive dysfunction, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment was "recommended with caveats." The UHDRS Cognitive Assessment, the UHDRS-For Advanced Patients cognitive section, the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale, the Frontal Assessment Battery, the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale, the Mini-Mental State Examination, and the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status were "suggested" for evaluating severity of cognitive impairment. The MoCA was "suggested" as a screening tool for cognitive impairment. The major challenge in the assessment of cognition in Huntington's disease is the lack of a formal definition of dementia and/or mild cognitive impairment in this disease. The committee concluded that there is a need to further validate currently available cognitive scales in Huntington's disease, but that it is premature to recommend the development of new scales. Recently developed Huntington's disease-specific scales, such as the Huntington's Disease-Cognitive Assessment Battery, hold promise but require the completion of more comprehensive clinimetric development. © 2017 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".