Comparison of the Accuracy of Short Cognitive Screens Among Adults With Cognitive Complaints in Turkey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cutoff values of cognitive screen tests vary according to age and educational levels. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy and determine cutoffs for 3 short cognitive screening instruments: the Mini-Mental State Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment Screen-Turkish version (Qmci-TR), in older adults with low literacy in Turkey. METHODS: In all 321 patients, 133 with subjective cognitive complaints (SCC), 88 amnestic-type mild cognitive impairment (aMCI), and 100 with probable Alzheimer disease (AD) with a median of 5 years education were included. Education and age-specific cutoffs were determined. RESULTS: For the overall population, the Qmci-TR was more accurate than the MoCA in distinguishing between aMCI and AD (area under the curve=0.83 vs. 0.76, P=0.004) and the Qmci-TR and Mini-Mental State Examination were superior to the MoCA in discriminating SCC from aMCI and AD. All instruments had similar accuracy among those with low literacy (primary school and lower educational level or illiterate). CONCLUSIONS: To distinguish between SCC, aMCI, and AD in a sample of older Turkish adults, the Qmci-TR may be preferable. In very low literacy, the choice of the instrument appears less important.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".