Preliminary study of the reliability and validity of the Johns Hopkins Adapted Cognitive Exam (Chinese version) in neurological intensive care unit patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Johns Hopkins Adapted Cognitive Exam (ACE) in neurological intensive care unit patients. DESIGN: The English version of the ACE was translated and adapted into Chinese. The cognitive function of 40 critically ill NICU patients was assessed using the Chinese version of the ACE and the Mini-mental state examination (MMSE) battery. Scores on the ACE and MMSE were analyzed, and the scale's content validity, construct validity, concurrent validity, internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability metrics were determined. RESULT: The coefficients for the Pearson correlations between individual item scores and total score ranged from 0.617 to 0.938, and content validity was good. ACE scores were significantly correlated with MMSE scores(r = 0.822, p<0.05). Five factors were extracted during the principal component analysis, the cumulative contribution of which was 85.90%. Overall, the factor loading of each item was 0.5, and the scale had good construct validity. The Chinese version of the ACE demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach'α = 0.756), inter-rater reliability (ICC>0.95), and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.652-0.979). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the Chinese version of the ACE was a reliable and valid screening tool for cognitive impairment in NICU patients. List of abbreviations: ACE: (Johns Hopkins Adapted Cognitive Exam); NICU : (neurological intensive care unit); MMSE: (Mini-Mental State Examination); SPSS: (the Statistical package for the Social Sciences); ICC: (Intra-class Correlation Coefficients); SCCM: (Society of Critical Care Medicine); PICS: (post-intensive care syndrome); ARDS:(acute respiratory distress syndrome); MoCA; (Montreal Cognitive Assessment); EFA: (exploratory factor analysis).
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".