MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280588855 · doi:10.14624/nr2202009

Erprobung des MEC-Tests bei kognitiven Kommunikationsstörungen bei leichten kognitiven Beeinträchtigungen und demenziellen Erkrankungen

2022· article· de· W4280588855 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
K. Fortmeier, K. Husmann, Ana Sofia Costa, K. Reetz, S. Heim

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurologie & Rehabilitation · 2022
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Medical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGynecologyCognitive impairmentPsychologyCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Zusammenfassung Zusammenfassung Bei demenziellen Erkrankungen können die sprachlichkommunikativen Fähigkeiten in variabler Art betroffen sein. Trotzdem fehlen im deutschsprachigen Raum geeignete Standardverfahren zur Diagnostik dieser kognitiven Kommunikationsstörungen. Diese Studie beschäftigt sich mit der Erprobung der Anwendbarkeit des MEC-Tests bei dieser Zielgruppe. 16 Patient*innen mit MCI oder leichtgradiger Demenz wurden mit der CERAD Batterie und mit dem MECTest getestet. Bei 94,1% war der MEC-Test durchführbar. Die Durchführungsdauer von durchschnittlich 72,7 Minuten stand nicht im Zusammenhang mit der CERAD. Die Durchführungsdauer unterschied sich zwischen Patienten mit neurodegenerativer vs. affektiver Genese. Jede/r Patient*in zeigte in durchschnittlich 9 Untertests einen Wert unter dem klinischen Trennwert. Die Leistung im MEC stand in Zusammenhang mit der CERAD. Insgesamt wurden sieben der 14 MEC-Untertests aufgrund von Bodeneffekten oder fehlenden Zusammenhängen mit der CERAD als ungeeignet für die Zielgruppe identifiziert. Zusammenfassend ließ sich eine Auswahl an Subtests des MEC-Testverfahren bei dieser Zielgruppe gut anwenden. Schlüsselwörter: Diagnostik, Demenz, Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), Logopädie/Sprachtherapie, kognitive Kommunikationsstörung Abstract Dementia is associated with language and communication deficits. However, standardized diagnostic instruments for the assessment of communication disorders for this population are scarce. Therefore, the present study explores whether the Montreal Evaluation of Communication (MEC) test can be applied to persons with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Sixteen patients were tested with the (CERAD) and MEC tests. The MEC test could be completely administered in 94.1%. The average duration of 72.7 minutes was not correlated with the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease CERAD score but differed between neurodegenerative vs. affective etiology. Patients showed language/communication deficits in 9 of the MEC sub-tests. Average performance on the MEC test was correlated with the CERAD score. Seven of the 14 MEC subtests were identified as unsuitable for dementia or MCI because of floor effects in performance or poor association with the CERAD. To conclude, the MEC test can be administered to patients with dementia or MCI, particularly a selection of a sub-set of 14 tests. Keywords: diagnostics, dementia, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), speech-language therapy, cognitive communication disorder

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.342 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologie & RehabilitationSame topicHealth and Medical StudiesFrench-language works237,207