Prevalence and Characteristics of Mild Cognitive Impairment in the Community-dwelling Elderly Compared to Elderly with Normal Cognitive Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to identify the prevalence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) among a group of community-dwellingelderlyandto determine if thereweredifferences ingeneralcharacteristics, activitiesof daily living (ADL), perceived health status (PHS) between the MCI group and group of elderly with normal cognitive function. Methods:Thisstudyutilizeda descriptive survey design. Sixhundredand fivesubjects over the age65 were recruited from an S public health center, Seoul. Data were gathered through a variety of instruments: MoCA-K, K-MMSE, K-MBI, S-IADL, and PHS scale. Data were analyzed by SPSS/WIN 18.0 using descriptive statistics, Chi-Squaretest and t-test. Results:TheprevalenceofMCI among thesubjectswas 46.0%.Differences in IADL, PHS, age, education, sex, and residing with aspouse were statistically significant betweengroups. The MCI group hadlower IADL, lower PHS, were older, and had lower educational levelsthan the groupwithnormal cognitive function. Further, the MCI group was less likely to live with a spouse. Conclusion:It is suggested that MCIgroupshouldbetargetedindevelopingandimplementingnursingstrategies toprevent dementiaandimprove the elderly cognitive function.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".