Validation Study of the Chinese Version of Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III for Diagnosing Mild Cognitive Impairment and Mild Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There are only a few cognitive screening tests for the Chinese-speaking population, and so this study aimed to validate the Chinese version of Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III (ACE-III) for detecting mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild dementia. Its diagnostic accuracy was compared with the Chinese versions of the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). METHODS: The 176 included individuals were divided into 3 groups: mild dementia group, MCI group, and normal control group. MMSE, MoCA, and ACE-III were administered to all participants by researchers who were blinded to the clinical grouping. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were analyzed. RESULTS: <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The present study has verified that ACE-III is a reliable and accurate tool for screening MCI and mild dementia in the Chinese-speaking population, and is significantly superior to MMSE and MoCA for detecting MCI.
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 | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".