MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376487179 · doi:10.37897/rjpp.2020.3.4

Is the MMSE still effective for evaluating cognitive decline?

2020· article· en· W4376487179 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexandru Pavel

Bibliographic record

VenueRomanian Journal of Psychiatry & Psychotherapy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaCognitive declineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionNeurocognitiveNeuropsychologyContext (archaeology)Mini–Mental State ExaminationPsychologyCognitive impairmentNeuropsychological assessmentClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is a widely used screening tool for evaluating cognitive decline in various clinical settings. However, there is growing evidence that the MMSE may not be as effective in detecting the early stages of cognitive impairment, such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or subjective cognitive decline (SCD). Several studies have suggested that the MMSE has lower sensitivity in detecting MCI compared to other neuropsychological tests, such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination (ACE-R). Additionally, the MMSE may not be sensitive enough to detect SCD, which is a subjective complaint of cognitive decline without objective impairment on neuropsychological tests. Despite these limitations, the MMSE remains a viable option for detecting major neurocognitive disorders, such as dementia, and it may still have a role in certain clinical contexts. Therefore, it is important to consider the specific context and purpose of the evaluation when selecting a 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 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)0.000
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 score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.863

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.361 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRomanian Journal of Psychiatry & PsychotherapySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207