Validation of the Dépistage Cognitif de Québec in the Oldest Old
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: (DCQ; www.dcqtest.org), a new cognitive screening tool for atypical degenerative syndromes, in the oldest old. METHODS: The DCQ was developed by expert behavioural neurologists and clinical neuropsychologists based on updated criteria for Alzheimer's disease, primary progressive aphasia, and behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia. It targets five relevant cognitive domains: Memory, Visuospatial, Executive, Language, and Behaviour. Validation was performed using a prospective community-based sample consisting of 53 healthy French-speaking Canadian volunteers aged between 80 and 94 years old. Normative data were derived from participants with no history of cognitive difficulties and a Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score ≥ 24. RESULTS: < .01) with the MoCA. Normative data shown in percentiles were stratified by age and education for DCQ total score and for each of the five cognitive domains. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the DCQ is a valid cognitive screening test in the oldest old. It is proposed that the DCQ can help early identification of atypical degenerative syndromes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".