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 OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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