Screening to Assessment Pathways in Evaluating Functional Cognition in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identification of functional cognitive deficits can facilitate intervention to improve outcomes among older adults. We aimed to determine if impairments on screening tests of cognition are associated with deficits in performance on a more extensive functional cognitive assessment. Using a cross-sectional study design we administered the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Mini-Cog, the Menu Task, and Weekly Calendar Planning Activity (WCPA) to a convenience sample of 277 community-dwelling older adults (55-93 years old). We created impaired and unimpaired groups using an established cut-off score for each screening test and compared each group on WCPA scores. The WCPA scores that demonstrated significant differences across screening measures were: Accuracy, Efficiency, Strategies, Rules, and Appointments Entered. Effect sizes for the WCPA scores Accuracy and Efficiency were large. Each screening test demonstrated discriminant validity on select WCPA scores and appear to be appropriate for use as screening tests of functional cognition.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".