Evaluating the efficiency of a five-minute cognitive test for the use in non-demented patients with cognitive declines (a pilot study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: the Five-Minute Cognitive Test (FCT) was designed in 2019 by the Chinese scientists to capture deficits in five domains of cognitive abilities, including episodic memory, language fluency, time orientation, visuospatial function, and executive function. Aim: to evaluate the efficiency of the Russian FCT version for identifying cognitive impairments (CI) in non-demented patients. Patients and Methods: according to the international requirements and standards, the FCT was translated and adapted and then evaluated in a focus group of non-demented patients (n=62, 60–75 years old) followed by the assessment of its psychometric properties. The FCT results were compared with the MMSE and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) scores in two patient groups: the treatment group (n=30) consisting of patients with moderate CI, before after the cognitive rehabilitation course, and the comparison group, consisting of 32 individuals with normal cognitive functions. In addition, the correlation of the hippocampal volume with FCT/MMSE scores was assessed. Results: the average time to complete FCT was 5–6 min. The sensitivity and specificity of PCT for CI screening was 80.6% and 84.11%, respectively. As demonstrated by the study findings, FCT’s diagnostic performance was not inferior to that of other tests used for detecting CI. The neurovisualization data showed that there was a positive correlation between the hippocampal volume and the FCT/MMSE scores. Conclusion: the preliminary results suggest that the Russian FCT version is acceptable and promising for the use in clinical practice as a relevant screening test for identifying CI. KEYWORDS: mild cognitive impairments, moderate cognitive impairments, Alzheimer’s disease, brief cognitive test. FOR CITATION: Tuzhikov K.P., Voitenkov V.B., Ekusheva E.V. Evaluating the efficiency of a five-minute cognitive test for the use in non- demented patients with cognitive declines (a pilot study). Russian Medical Inquiry. 2022;6(10):551–555 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.32364/2587- 6821-2022-6-10-551-555
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".