Operational Determination of Subjective Cognitive Decline, Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Dementia Using Sum of Boxes of the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) Scale is the gold standard for the staging of dementia due to Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, the application of CDR for the staging of subjective cognitive decline (SCD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in AD remains controversial. This study aimed to use the sum of boxes of the CDR (CDR-SB) plus an SCD single questionnaire to operationally determine the different stages of cognitive impairment (CI) due to AD and non-AD. Methods: This was a two-phase study, and we retrospectively analyzed the Show Chwan Dementia registry database using the data selected from 2015 to 2020. Individuals with normal cognition (NC), SCD, MCI, and mild dementia (MD) due to AD or non-AD with a CDR < 2 were included in the analysis. Results: A total of 6,946 individuals were studied, including 875, 1,009, 1,585, and 3,447 with NC, SCD, MCI, and MD, respectively. The cutoff scores of CDR-SB for NC/SCD, SCD/MCI, and MCI/dementia were 0/0.5, 0.5/1.0, and 2.5/3.0, respectively. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed that the area under the curve (AUC) values of the test groups were 0.85, 0.90, and 0.92 for discriminating NC from SCD, SCD from MCI, and MCI from dementia, respectively. Compared with the Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument or the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, the use of CDR-SB is less influenced by age and education. Conclusion: Our study showed that the operational determination of SCD, MCI, and dementia using the CDR-SB is practical and can be applied in clinical settings and research on CI or dementia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".