MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3143781547

Application of Montreal Cognitive Assessment for Screening MCI in Community Elderly in Chengdu

2011· article· en· W3143781547 on OpenAlex
Gang Yi, Jun Xiao

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

VenueZhongguo linchuang xinlixue zazhi · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTechnology and Human Factors in Education and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPsychologyCognitionCognitive impairmentGerontologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

目的:本文旨在研究蒙特利尔认知评估量表(MoCA)在成都市社区老年人轻度认知功能障碍(MCI)筛查中的价值,探讨该量表对社区老年人MCI筛查的最佳分界值。方法:采用简易精神状态量表(MMSE)和MoCA对成都市社区老年人进行MCI筛查,计算MoCA的信度、效度、敏感性、特异性和Youden指数,并计算适合本市老年人MCI患者的划界分。结果:参与此次社区调查并配合完成所有测试的人数为674人,其中MCI患者106人,MoCA量表的Cronbach’sα为0.852;其总分与MMSE相关系数为0.9392;MoCA以原版推荐26分为界,对MCI筛查的敏感性和特异性分别为98.11%和26.72%,Youden指数为0.2483。结论:用MoCA对成都市社区老年人认知功能的筛查是简便可行的,具有良好的信度、效度和敏感性。推荐以22分作为我市社区老年人的MCI分界值。

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.308 · 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