MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391428454 · doi:10.1097/wad.0000000000000609

Compassion Versus Accuracy

2024· article· en· W4391428454 on OpenAlexaff
Katrina J. Kent, Nesrine Adly Ibrahim, Kristoffer Romero, Shannon D. Baker, Matthew Greenacre, Chantal M. Boucher, Robert M. Roth, László A. Erdődi

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive impairmentCognitionDementiaNeuropsychologyOperationalizationMini–Mental State ExaminationClinical psychologyPsychologyMedicinePsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE) is a commonly used screening tool for cognitive impairment. Lenient scoring of spatial orientation errors (SOEs) on the MMSE is common and negatively affects its diagnostic utility. We examined the effect of lenient SOE scoring on MMSE classification accuracy in a consecutive case series of 103 older adults (age 60 or above) clinically referred for neuropsychological evaluation. Lenient scoring of SOEs on the MMSE occurred in 53 (51.4%) patients and lowered the sensitivity by 7% to 18%, with variable gains in specificity (0% to 11%) to psychometrically operationalized cognitive impairment. Results are consistent with previous reports that lenient scoring is widespread and attenuates the sensitivity of the MMSE. Given the higher clinical priority of correctly detecting early cognitive decline over specificity, a warning against lenient scoring of SOEs (on the MMSE and other screening tools) during medical education and in clinical practice is warranted.

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)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.246
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.246
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.027
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer Disease & Associated DisordersSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207