MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395080473 · doi:10.1155/2024/5527225

Comparing the Efficacy of Two Cognitive Screening Tools in Identifying Gray and White Matter Brain Damage among Older Adults

2024· article· en· W4395080473 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação de Amparo à Ciência e Tecnologia do Estado de PernambucoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsGray (unit)MedicineWhite matterCognitionWhite (mutation)GerontologyCognitive impairmentData sciencePsychiatryMagnetic resonance imagingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Ageing is associated with structural changes in brain regions and functional decline in cognitive domains. Noninvasive tools for identifying structural damage in the brains of older adults are relevant for early treatment. Aims. This study aims to evaluate and compare the accuracy of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA©) in identifying gray and white matter brain damage in older individuals with varying degrees of cognitive impairment. Methods. Ninety older adults (62 women) with an average age of 69 ± 7 years were enrolled and categorized as having no cognitive impairment (NCI), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or moderate cognitive impairment (MoCI). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was utilized to assess the number, volume, and distribution of brain damage. The Fazekas and Scheltens scales were applied to the brain MRIs, and inferential statistics were employed to compare variables among the groups. Results. Cognitive impairment was observed in 56.7% of the participants (95% confidence interval (CI): 46.4–66.4%), with thirty-six older adults (40%) classified as MCI and 15 (17%) as MoCI. Cognitive impairment and medial temporal lobe (MTL) atrophy were found to be associated ( <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"><a:mi>p</a:mi><a:mo>=</a:mo><a:mn>0.001</a:mn></a:math> ), exhibiting higher mean volume scales of the MTL atrophied area in the MoCI group ( <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"><c:mi>p</c:mi><c:mo>&lt;</c:mo><c:mn>0.001</c:mn></c:math> ). The MMSE accurately revealed MTL atrophy based on the Scheltens ( <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"><e:mi>p</e:mi><e:mo>&lt;</e:mo><e:mn>0.05</e:mn></e:math> ) and Fazekas ( <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M4"><g:mi>p</g:mi><g:mo>&lt;</g:mo><g:mn>0.05</g:mn></g:math> ) scales. At the same time, the MoCA accurately identified periventricular white matter (PWM) abnormalities according to the Fazekas scale ( <i:math xmlns:i="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M5"><i:mi>p</i:mi><i:mo>&lt;</i:mo><i:mn>0.05</i:mn></i:math> ). Conclusions. The MMSE and MoCA screening tools effectively identified gray and white matter brain damage in older adults with varying degrees of cognitive impairment. Lower MMSE scores are associated with MTL atrophy and lesions, and lower MoCA scores are related to PWM lesions. The concurrent use of MMSE and MoCA is recommended for assessing structural changes in distinct brain regions.

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.352 · 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