MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200023582 · doi:10.1093/ehjdh/ztab104.3080

Assessment of cognitive dysfunction using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment test: rate, severity and comparison with the Clock test alone in a population of patients referred for TAVI

2021· article· en· W4200023582 on OpenAlex

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

VenueEuropean Heart Journal - Digital Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineKappaInternal medicineConcordanceInterquartile rangePopulationCardiologyCognitive impairment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Although not recommended in routine practice, the detection and quantification of Cognitive Dysfunction (CD) in older patients might have an impact on clinical decisions. We assessed the rate and severity of CD in an unselected population of patients referred for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and using the Clock Drawing Test (ClockT) alone. Methods The MoCA was performed before TAVI by an experienced operator. The ClockT was scored out of 10 points according to the Rouleau rating scale. CD was defined according to the MoCA score: No CD if score ≥26, mild CD if score 18–25, moderate if 10–17 and severe if <10. Inter-observer reliability of scoring on the ClockT was estimated with the Bland-Altman method. Agreement between MoCA scores and the ClockT for ruling out and for detecting CD were measured with the Kappa coefficient. Results MoCA was performed in 83 consecutive patients referred for TAVI, median age 85 years. The mean time required for assessment was 11±2 min for the MoCA and 3±2 min for the ClockT. The mean MoCA score was 21±4.5: CD was excluded in 17 (20%) pts, mild CD was found in 50 (60%), moderate in 15 (18%) and severe in one (1%). The median ClockT score was 8 (interquartile 6; 9), with excellent inter-observer concordance (Kappa= 0.84). Overall, 51% of the variance of the MoCA score was explained by the ClockT alone according to multiple regression. A ClockT <7 detected a group with significantly lower MoCA score, compared to pts with higher ClockT scores (figure). Conclusion Among patients referred for TAVI, CD can be excluded using the MoCA test in 20%, while moderate or severe CD is observed in 18%. The ClockT alone is faster to implement, reliable to interpret and enabled detection of patients with moderate CD when Rouleau scoring was <7. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.314 · 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