MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406799576 · doi:10.32388/muivh1

Cognitive Screening Tools for Dementia Detection in Primary Healthcare Centers in India: A Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4406799576 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeevitha Gowda R

Bibliographic record

VenueQeios · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaPrimary careCognitionPrimary health careCognitive impairmentHealth careMedicineGerontologyPolitical scienceFamily medicinePsychiatryDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a growing public health concern in India, with an increasing prevalence among the elderly population. Early detection is crucial for effective intervention. Primary healthcare (PHC) centres play a vital role in identifying cognitive impairment; however, the effectiveness of cognitive screening tools in these settings is questionable. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review explores the cognitive screening tools available for dementia detection in PHC centres in India, assesses their effectiveness, and identifies the need for their improvement and adaptation. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar for studies published up to October 2024. A total of 29 studies were identified, indicating that tools such as the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) are frequently used. However, these tools face significant challenges related to educational background and language comprehension, impacting their effectiveness. CONCLUSION: There is an urgent need for culturally and linguistically appropriate cognitive screening tools in PHC settings in India to enhance the early detection of dementia.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0150.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQeiosSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207