MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128371162 · doi:10.1093/ijpp/riab001

Screening for mild cognitive impairment among older Albanian patients by clinical pharmacists

2021· article· en· W3128371162 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Klejda Harasani, Delina Xhafaj, Adrisa Lekaj, Livia Veshi, María del Carmen Olvera Porcel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Pharmacy Practice · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineCognitive impairmentLogistic regressionCohen's kappaCognitionKappaGerontologyStatisticFamily medicineInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and its correlated factors among elderly Albanian patients using different screening tools applied by clinical pharmacists. METHODS: Patients aged 60 years old or more from two primary care centers located in two Albanian cities were included in the study. Two clinical pharmacists applied the MoCA/MoCA B (Montreal Cognitive Assessment/Basic) and the Mini-Cog in Albanian. A predictive multivariate logistic regression analysis and Kappa statistic were conducted. KEY FINDINGS: The prevalence of MCI using MoCA/MoCA B and Mini-Cog scales was 75.73 and 20.39%, respectively. There was a poor degree of agreement between them (Kappa 2.38). Older men had an increased risk of MCI. CONCLUSIONS: The involvement of clinical pharmacists in screening for MCI might help in selecting vulnerable individuals for more specialized examination. The MoCA/MoCA B tool is recommended for higher sensitivity.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.899

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Pharmacy PracticeSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207