MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125429887 · doi:10.3988/jcn.2021.17.1.106

Validation of a New Screening Tool for Dementia: The Simple Observation Checklist for Activities of Daily Living

2021· article· en· W3125429887 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jinse Park, Hojin Choi, Jae‐Won Jang, Jae‐Sung Lim, YoungSoon Yang, Chan‐Nyoung Lee, Kee Hyung Park

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Neurology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEisai Korea
KeywordsChecklistDementiaSimple (philosophy)Activities of daily livingPsychologyComputer scienceGerontologyMedicineApplied psychologyCognitive psychologyPsychiatryPathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Screening tests for dementia such as the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment are widely used, but there are drawbacks to their efficient use. There remains a need for a brief and easy method of assessing the activities of daily living (ADL) that can be administered to elderly individuals by healthcare workers. We have therefore developed a new scale named the Simple Observation Checklist for Activities of Daily Living (SOC-ADL). METHODS: We developed the SOC-ADL scale as a team of experts engaged in caring for individuals with dementia. This scale comprises eight items and was designed based on the Korean instrumental activities of daily living (K-IADL) scale and the Barthel activities of daily living scale (Barthel Index). The new scale was validated by enrolling 176 patients with cognitive dysfunction across 6 centers. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were performed. We assessed its concurrent validity by performing comparisons with the Korean-MMSE, Clinical Dementia Rating, Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes, K-IADL, and Barthel Index, and its criterion validity by performing comparisons between mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. We also used Cronbach's alpha to assess the interitem reliability. The appropriate cutoff values were determined by analyzing receiver operating characteristic curves, including the areas underneath them. RESULTS: EFA extracted one factor and CFA revealed that all of the model fits exceeded the minimum acceptable criteria. The SOC-ADL scores were strongly correlated with those of the other tools for dementia and could be used to differentiate MCI from dementia. Cronbach's alpha values indicated that the results were reliable. The optimal cutoff value of the SOC-ADL for discriminating dementia from MCI was 3 points, which provided a sensitivity and specificity of 74.5% and 75.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that the SOC-ADL is a valid and reliable tool for differentiating dementia from MCI based on an assessment of ADL. This new tool can be used for screening ADL in elderly subjects who have difficulty communicating, and to increase the efficiency of dementia screening at the population level.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NeurologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207