Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare ability of 2 measures of delayed memory (word list, story paragraph) to discriminate Normal Control (NC) subjects from those with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI). METHODS: Demographic, neuropsychological, and diagnostic data contributed by 34 Alzheimer's Disease Centers to the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center characterized 2717 individuals with a diagnosis of either NC (n=2205) or aMCI (n=512). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Memory Index Score (MoCA-MIS) assessed delayed word recall, and the Craft Story 21, delayed story recall. Logistic regression and receiver operator characteristic curves controlling for age, sex, and education assessed the ability of each test to differentiate NCs from subjects with aMCI. RESULTS: The MoCA-MIS had significantly better sensitivity and specificity (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve 0.83 vs. 0.80, P=0.004). At sensitivity 80%, the specificity of the MoCA-MIS was 69.1%, compared with 62.8% for the Craft Story. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that the MoCA-MIS, a recall score from items within the MoCA, is better at discriminating NCs from subjects with aMCI than the Craft Story. Word recall may be an efficient alternative to paragraph recall for diagnostic screening within clinical practice and research settings.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".