Association between Rapid Dementia Screening Test score and clinical events in elderly patients with cardiovascular disease: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Cognitive decline is prevalent among patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). Cognitive measurement has been considered as a standard assessment for secondary prevention; however, standard cognitive tests are sometimes infeasible due to time constraints. This study aimed to examine the association between the Rapid Dementia Screening Test (RDST), a brief screening tool for cognitive function, and clinical events in elderly patients with CVD. METHODS AND RESULTS: This retrospective cohort study included 140 hospitalized patients with CVD who participated in inpatient cardiac rehabilitation (median age, 75 years; male, 67%). Cognitive function for each patient was assessed using the RDST and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), a standard test of mild cognitive impairment. The clinical events assessed as outcomes included all-cause mortality and unplanned rehospitalization. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed similar predictive accuracy for the study outcome (P = 0.337) between the RDST [area under the curve, 0.651; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.559-0.743] and MoCA (0.625; 0.530-0.720). The ROC analysis identified a cut-off value of 9 points for the RDST (sensitivity, 77.8%; specificity, 50.5%). Patients with RDST ≤9 showed a poor survival rate compared with those with ≥10 points (log-rank test, P = 0.002; hazard ratio, 2.94, 95% CI, 1.46-5.94). This result was consistent even after adjusting for potential confounders. CONCLUSION: The RDST was associated with clinical events in elderly patients with CVD and its predictive capability was comparable with that of MoCA, a standard cognitive test. The RDST may be useful in CVD as an alternative screening tool for cognitive decline.
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 | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".