Screening for cognitive impairment in an Australian aged care assessment team as part of comprehensive geriatric assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".