MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792860673 · doi:10.1080/13825585.2018.1439447

Screening for cognitive impairment in an Australian aged care assessment team as part of comprehensive geriatric assessment

2018· article· en· W2792860673 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Roger Clarnette, Ming Goh, Sneha Bharadwaj, Jillian Ryan, Suzanne Ellis, Anton Svendrovski, D. William Molloy, Rónán Ó’Caoimh

Bibliographic record

VenueAging Neuropsychology and Cognition · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaCognitive impairmentMedicineGerontologyCognitive Assessment SystemCognitionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitive declineMini–Mental State ExaminationPhysical therapyInternal medicinePsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is important to stratify and address risk. Yet, few short cognitive screening instruments are validated for this. . In Australia, all clients referred to an Aged Care Assessment Team (ACAT) receive comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) including the Standardized Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE). We compared the accuracy of the quick mild cognitive impairment (Qmci) screen to the SMMSE in 283 participants: 195 with dementia, 47 with MCI, and 41 with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) in an Australian community-based ACAT. Both had similar accuracy in identifying dementia, AUC of 0.86 for the Qmci versus 0.93 for the SMMSE (p = 0.10), but the Qmci was more accurate than the SMMSE in differentiating MCI from SCD, AUC of 0.84 versus 0.71, respectively, p = 0.046. These suggest that the new, short (3-5 min) Qmci screenis appropriate for use in an ACAT or other units conducting CGA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.846

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.375 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAging Neuropsychology and CognitionSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207