Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of Pattern Identifications Tool for Cognitive Disorders (PIT-C) and verify the correlation with other related scales. Methods: The study in this protocol is a single group, prospective, observational one. The subjects of the study were men and women between the ages of 45 and 85, diagnosed with neurocognitive disorders by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (fifth Edition) criteria (n=60, Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR)=0.5, Korean Version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-K)≤22). The reliability of PIT-C was evaluated as test-retest and inter-rater reliability. And correlation between PIT-C and other related scales was also assessed. Results: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Dunsan Korean Medicine Hospital of Daejeon University and registered in the Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS), and was made public in advance to ensure transparency of the research process and conduct ethical clinical trials. Conclusions: The results of this study can be used to classify neurocognitive disorders as Korean medicine and PIT-C will be helpful tool for primary health care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.033 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".