The development of a cognitive screening protocol for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples: the Guddi Way screen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Many Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples are exposed to risk factors for cognitive impairment. However, culturally appropriate methods for identifying potential cognitive impairment are lacking. This paper reports on the development of a screen and interview protocol designed to flag possible cognitive impairments and psychosocial disability in Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander adults over the age of 16years. Methods The Guddi Way screen includes items relating to cognition and mental functions across multiple cognitive domains. The screen is straightforward, brief, and able to be administered by non-clinicians with training. Results Early results suggest the Guddi Way screen is reliable and culturally acceptable, and correctly flags cognitive dysfunction among Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander adults. Conclusions The screen shows promise as a culturally appropriate and culturally developed method to identify the possibility of cognitive impairments and psychosocial disability in Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander adults. A flag on the Guddi Way screen indicates the need for referral to an experienced neuropsychologist or neuropsychiatrist for further assessment and can also assist in guiding support services.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".