Comparison of the Brief Interview for Mental Status (<scp>BIMS</scp>) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (<scp>MoCA</scp>) for identifying cognitive impairments and predicting rehabilitation outcomes in an inpatient rehabilitation facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) is the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' primary cognitive assessment for multiple health care settings. However, research suggests that the BIMS has low sensitivity in detecting mild cognitive impairment in community samples and nursing home residents. OBJECTIVE: To determine the sensitivity of the BIMS in identifying patients with mild or moderate cognitive impairments in an inpatient rehabilitation setting and the relationship of BIMS and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores with rehabilitation outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation facility. PATIENTS: A total of 2252 patients admitted for orthopedic or general rehabilitation. METHODS: The sensitivity and specificity of the BIMS for identification of cognitive impairments were determined using validated cutoff scores on the MoCA as criterion. Multivariable ordinal regression was employed to determine if MoCA and BIMS scores were independent predictors of rehabilitation outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Functional independence at discharge (GG scores), rehabilitation efficiency (GG change per day), length of stay (LOS), and discharge destination. RESULTS: The BIMS had low sensitivity in identifying moderate (0.384) or mild (0.257) cognitive impairment. Patients classified as having moderate cognitive impairment on the MoCA had lower GG scores at discharge (odds ratio [OR] 0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30 to 0.46) and rehabilitation efficiency (OR 0.43, CI 0.34 to 0.53) compared to individuals identified as impaired on the BIMS (GG scores: OR 0.63, CI 0.52 to 0.78; efficiency: OR 0.71, CI 0.58 to 0.86). LOS (OR 1.49, CI 1.19 to 1.85) and discharge destination (OR 0.47, CI 0.28 to 0.77) were uniquely predicted in patients identified as moderately impaired on the MoCA but not the BIMS (LOS: OR 0.99, CI 0.80 to 1.21; discharge home: OR 0.93, CI 0.62 to 1.38). CONCLUSIONS: The BIMS had low sensitivity for detection of mild and moderate cognitive impairments. Compared to the MoCA, the BIMS was less effective at predicting rehabilitation outcomes.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".