MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390193679 · doi:10.1002/alz.079034

Comparative Performance of the Digital Clock and Recall™ Test, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and Saint Louis University Mental Status Among Patients in Primary Care

2023· article· en· W4390193679 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dustin B. Hammers, Nicole R. Fowler, Jared R. Brosch, Kristen L. Swartzell, Ali Jannati, Judy Mullavey, Joyce Rios Gomes‐Osman, James F. Murray, Deanna Willis

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentConcordanceMedicineCognitionRecallCognitive testTest (biology)AudiologyCognitive impairmentGerontologyPsychologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Digital cognitive assessment solutions can overcome some barriers to cognitive screening in primary care by providing rapidly-obtained objective insights without requiring specialty-trained examiners. The Linus Health Digital Clock and Recall (DCR™) is a three-part test consisting of three-word immediate verbal acquisition, the Digital Clock Test (DCTclock™), and delayed recall of the three words. Our objective was to compare performance on the DCR to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA; Nasreddine et al., 2005) and the Saint Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS; Tariq et al., 2006), two commonly used screening tests in primary care. METHOD: Comparative analyses of DCR, MoCA (Total Score and Memory Index Score [MIS]), and SLUMS results were conducted among 80 primary care patients - 65 years and older presenting for any reason - whose DCR performance was indicative of cognitive impairment. RESULT: Of the 80 patients (mean age 74.0 [±7.8]; 60% female) performing as impaired or borderline impaired on the DCR, 67 completed the MoCA and 13 completed the SLUMS. Comparison between the DCR and MoCA Total Score included 78% (52/67) concordance for identifying impairment (cutoff <26). While the remaining 15 of 67 patients (22%) had normal MoCA Total Scores (≥26), 13 (87%) missed points in at least one MoCA cognitive domain and 8 (53%) missed points in multiple MoCA domains (often language and delayed recall). Comparison between DCR and SLUMS revealed that all 13 patients receiving SLUMS assessment had DCR scores 0-1 and SLUMS scores <27 (indicating cognitive impairment). See Tables 1 and 2 for breakdown of MoCA, MIS, and SLUMS stratified by DCR performance. Logistic regression found that DCTclock metrics of information processing (z = 2.00, p = .045) and spatial reasoning (z = 2.82 p = .005) discriminated cognitive impairment on MoCA Total Score (cutoff <26). Overall, ROC analysis revealed good accuracy of DCR to identify MoCA performance (AUC = .84; Figure 1). CONCLUSION: Screening in primary care using the DCR is feasible, takes less time to administer than MoCA or SLUMS, and shows concordant results with these more established screening tools in detecting cognitive impairment. Future research aims to investigate the criterion validity of the DCR among biomarkers for neurodegenerative disease.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207