Diagnostic Utility of the Portuguese Version of the Mini-Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination in Early Dementia
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".