Informativeness of the scales for assessing cognitive functions and psychometric questionnaires for moderate cognitive impairment and vascular genesis dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is assessing informative capability of the most frequently used scales and neuropsychological tests evaluating cognitive function for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and vascular dementia (VD). A total of 104 patients with cerebrovascular disorder including 39 male and 65 female were divided into two subgroups depending on severity of the cognitive impairment. The first group consisted of 51 patients with MCI and the second one consisted of 53 patients with VD confirmed by MMSE and MoCA-test. The obtained correlation analysis data testifies to difficulties in the interpretation of these routinely used scales not only because of the differences between investigated parameters of the patients with MCI and VD, but also because of the main goal of their creation. Most of the scales were created for patients with dementia and now their sensitivity for MCI is doubtful. The MoCA test, Clock Drawing Test (CDT) and ADAS-cog subscale are more sensitive and has greatest informative capability for patients with MCI and dementia, while MMSE is more informative mostly for patients with dementia. Neuropsychological tests DAD and NPI remain informative in varying degrees of cognitive impairment. In the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of the degree of cognitive impairment of vascular genesis, one should use not only a complex of scales and neuropsychological tests, but also methods that comprehensively reflect the vascular genesis of the process of formation of cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".