MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401025697 · doi:10.1192/bja.2024.10

Cognitive testing and the hazards of cut-offs

2024· review· en· W4401025697 on OpenAlex
Hugh Series, Alistair Burns

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

VenueBJPsych Advances · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsNormativeMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionDementiaPsychologyTest (biology)Standard deviationGerontologyCognitive impairmentCognitive psychologyMedicineStatisticsMathematicsPsychiatryDiseasePathologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article reviews some basic statistical concepts used in medicine, including the mean, standard deviation, sensitivity and specificity. Using this background the authors describe how these can be applied to cognitive tests, taking the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) as an example. Two different approaches to using the MoCA in diagnosing dementia are considered: one using a fixed cut-off score, the other taking account of normative data about the effects of age and educational level on MoCA scores. It is recommended that clinicians assessing cognitive function should not rely on a fixed cut-off score, but where possible compare the patient's result with those of people of comparable age and educational background, although normative data of this kind are not always available.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.378 · 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