Performance on the mini-mental state exam and the Montreal cognitive assessment in a sample of old age psychiatric patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study assesses to what extent the Mini-Mental State Exam and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores may predict the presence of dementia in a sample of typical old age psychiatric patients who may or may not have temporally or permanently reduced cognitive abilities. METHODS: A total of 141 inpatients completed the Mini-Mental State Exam and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment at arrival. All patients were subsequently diagnosed during their stay at the age-psychiatric unit. Receiver operating characteristics and analysis of variance were used to compare the results of the two tests for different patient groups. RESULTS: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment is slightly more sensitive and specific than the Mini-Mental State Exam for dementia prediction. Age, sex, and education only account for approximately 2% of the variance in both tests. Patients with more than one diagnosis across the diagnostic groups included in this study (dementia, psychoses, affective disorder, and depression) performed significantly poorer on both tests than patients with a single diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Both tests are efficient in detecting cognitive impairment, but neither test can effectively exclude other reasons for low test results in our sample of elderly psychiatric patients. The sensitivity for ruling out dementia is 27 points for the Mini-Mental State Exam and 23 points for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in the current patient sample.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it