Diagnostic Utility of the Portuguese Version of the Mini-Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination in Early Dementia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Aims: This contribution studies the psychometric properties (reliability, concurrent validity, and sensitivity) of the Portuguese version of the Mini-Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination (M-ACE) in the context of early dementia. Methods: A sample of 60 participants was distributed in two groups: control group and dementia group. The following tests were administered: the ACE-III, from which the M-ACE was extracted, the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). The CDR was used to determine the severity of dementia; the MoCA and ACE-III were used to determine the convergent validity of the M-ACE. Results: The reliability of the M-ACE is acceptable (α = .784). We extracted the cut-off scores and the corresponding values of sensitivity and specificity: A cutoff score of 17 on M-ACE has a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 72.1%. The M-ACE correlated significantly with the ACE-III and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Conclusion: The Portuguese version of the M-ACE has satisfactory psychometric characteristics and is a useful screening tool in the context of early dementia. The M-ACE can be employed in primary healthcare consultations.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it