Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: In this study, we compared Tablet PC-based cognitive assessment tools with MMSE-K and MoCA-K for people with cerebrovascular disease to examine their validity and test-retest reliability. Method: The study was conducted from June 18, 2018 to September 16, 2018, and covered 67 subacute stroke patients who were admitted to the Ulsan-based General Hospital and are receiving occupational therapy. The assessment used MMSE-K, MoCA-K, and Tablet PC-based cognitive assessment tools. The validity and confidence of the test-retest were verified through a Pearson's correlation. Result: The results of the validity analysis show that the correlation coefficient between the Tablet PC-based cognitive assessment tool and MMSE-K was r = .85, The correlation coefficient for MoCA-K was r = .86, which is highly feasible. The reliability was verified with r = .97. Conclusion: Through this study, we were able to verify the validity and reliability of Tablet PC-based cognitive assessment tools. Therefore, it is expected that such tools will be available for clinical use as a cognitive assessment approach.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".