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 OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hugh Series, Alistair Burns

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.

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)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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

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
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJPsych AdvancesSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207