Feasibility of Remote Administration of the Uniform Data Set-Version 3 for Assessment of Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Assess the feasibility and concurrent validity of a modified Uniform Data Set version 3 (UDSv3) for remote administration for individuals with normal cognition (NC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and early dementia. METHOD: Participants (N = 93) (age: 72.8 [8.9] years; education: 15.6 [2.5] years; 72% female; 84% White) were enrolled from the Wake Forest ADRC. Portions of the UDSv3 cognitive battery, plus the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, were completed by telephone or video within ~6 months of participant's in-person visit. Adaptations for phone administration (e.g., Oral Trails for Trail Making Test [TMT] and Blind Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA] for MoCA) were made. Participants reported on the pleasantness, difficulty, and preference for each modality. Staff provided validity ratings for assessments. Participants' remote data were adjudicated by cognitive experts blinded to the in person-diagnosis (NC [N = 44], MCI [N = 35], Dementia [N = 11], or other [N = 3]). RESULTS: Remote assessments were rated as pleasant as in-person assessments by 74% of participants and equally difficult by 75%. Staff validity rating (video = 92%; phone = 87.5%) was good. Concordance between remote/in-person scores was generally moderate to good (r = .3 -.8; p < .05) except for TMT-A/OTMT-A (r = .3; p > .05). Agreement between remote/in-person adjudicated cognitive status was good (k = .61-.64). CONCLUSIONS: We found preliminary evidence that older adults, including those with cognitive impairment, can be assessed remotely using a modified UDSv3 research battery. Adjudication of cognitive status that relies on remotely collected data is comparable to classifications using in-person assessments.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".