Examining cognitive functioning of adult acute psychiatric inpatients through a brief screening assessment.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Psychiatric inpatients present with multiple difficulties, including comorbid diagnoses, social problems, trauma, and high levels of psychiatric medication use. All of these factors have been associated with poorer cognitive functioning, which is rarely assessed. The aim of this study was to examine the acceptability of a brief cognitive screening assessment, and identify the cognitive and psychological profile of current psychiatric inpatients. METHOD: = 75) were administered brief measures of cognitive functioning, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA; Nasreddine et al., 2005), and psychological global distress, Clinical Outcomes of Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure, (CORE-OM; Evans et al., 2002) within the first 4 weeks of their hospital admissions. RESULTS: The MoCA was identified as acceptable for the inpatient environment. Most of the participants (79%) met the cut-off for mild cognitive impairment. No significant differences were found across diagnoses in regard to cognitive functioning, but participants with diagnoses of personality disorder experienced the most psychological global distress. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Acute psychiatric inpatient wards should consider mild cognitive impairments when assessing and treating people with serious mental illness and make appropriate adaptations to their care. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".