Remote neuropsychological assessment of elderly Japanese population using the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale: A validation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Studies have demonstrated the high agreement of several remote neuropsychological tests using video teleconferencing (VTC) with face-to-face (FTF) tests. However, the reliability of the remotely administered Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog), one of the most commonly used neuropsychological tests to detect cognitive decline, has not been substantially elucidated, particularly in Japanese populations. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the reliability of the remotely administered ADAS-cog compared with FTF-administered ADAS-cog among elderly Japanese participants. METHODS: Participants aged ≥60 years with and without cognitive impairment, i.e. those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), those with dementia and healthy controls (HCs), were assessed with the ADAS-cog using VTC and FTF testing at an interval of >2 weeks and <3 months. The assessment order (VTC or FTF) was randomized by participants. Participants' scores were compared among the entire sample, as well as subgroups, using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) in a mixed-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 73 participants were included in the study (36 men; age, 76.3 ± 7.6 years). The ICC for the ADAS-cog total score was high in the entire sample (0.86), whereas ICCs were moderate to high for the subgroups (MCI: 0.63, dementia: 0.80 and HC: 0.74). DISCUSSION: The results indicate that a VTC-administered ADAS-cog could be an alternative for an FTF-administered ADAS-cog, although further replication studies with larger sample sizes and a wider range of cognitive functionalities are warranted.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".