MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3111734331 · doi:10.1002/alz.041368

Home‐based evaluation of executive function (Home‐MET) for older adults with mild cognitive impairment

2020· article· en· W3111734331 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Frank Ho‐yin Lai

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentDementiaCognitionStroop effectActivities of daily livingExecutive functionsGerontologyPsychologyIndependent livingCognitive impairmentExecutive dysfunctionMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryNeuropsychologyInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Executive function helps older adults maintain their activities of daily living by making plans, setting goals, and carrying them out successfully. It is important for their independence in community living. Clinically, the underlying deficits in executive function (EF) also significantly contributed to their functional disabilities. EF has shown to be important, especially in the fast and complicated contemporary world, because it has been considered as central to independent daily living, solve problems, and resolve conflicts. EF was considered as a vital part of the independent living skills of older adults with dementia in community living. Some researchers commented that executive function is the core psychological deficit underlying dysfunction of mild cognitive impairment. The resulting functional disabilities were the major cause of extended hospital stays and protracted residential care. Method With a carefully match‐group of 80 mild cognitive impaired with 80 health control subjects. The home‐based evaluation of executive function (Home‐MET) was validated in subjects’ own living environment. Result This Home‐MET showed significant correlation in the assessment of attention control that was assessing by Test of Everyday Attention (TEA) (r = .86, p < .01), with working memory that was assessed with Trail Making Test (TMT) (r = .72, p < .01), with inhibitory control that was assessing with Stroop Test (r = .86, p < .01), with individuals’ functional disability was assessed by Chinese Disability Assessment of Dementia (CDAD) (r = .77, p < .01) and cognitive assessment was assessed by Hong Kong Montreal Cognitive Assessment (HK‐MoCA) (r = .88, p < .01). By benchmarking with the validated performance‐based executive function assessment, the Home‐MET shows significant correlation (r = .92, p < .05) with the executive function test in a standard environment in hospital, i.e. the Chinese Multiple Errands Test (the Chinese‐MET). The two‐stage hierarchical linear regression model with backward method showed functional disability was a marginally significant predictor (p < .059) for the Home‐MET with regression model showed with R2 = .93. Conclusion Results indicated the Home‐MET, can provide an objective measure of executive function for subjects with mild cognitive impairment in participants’ own home environment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→