Improving Early Dementia Detection Among Diverse Older Adults With Cognitive Concerns With the 5-Cog Paradigm: Protocol for a Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 5-Cog paradigm is a 5-minute brief cognitive assessment coupled with a clinical decision support tool designed to improve clinicians' early detection of cognitive impairment, including dementia, in their diverse older primary care patients. The 5-Cog battery uses picture- and symbol-based assessments and a questionnaire. It is low cost, simple, minimizes literacy bias, and is culturally fair. The decision support component of the paradigm helps nudge appropriate care provider response to an abnormal 5-Cog battery. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study is to evaluate the effectiveness, implementation, and cost of the 5-Cog paradigm. METHODS: We will enroll 6600 older patients with cognitive concerns from 22 primary care clinics in the Bronx, New York, and in multiple locations in Indiana for this hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial. We will analyze the effectiveness of the 5-Cog paradigm to increase the rate of new diagnoses of mild cognitive impairment syndrome or dementia using a pragmatic, cluster randomized clinical trial design. The secondary outcome is the ordering of new tests, treatments, and referrals for cognitive indications within 90 days after the study visit. The 5-Cog's decision support component will be deployed as an electronic medical record feature. We will analyze the 5-Cog's implementation process, context, and outcomes through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research using a mixed methods design (surveys and interviews). The study will also examine cost-effectiveness from societal and payer (Medicare) perspectives by estimating the cost per additional dementia diagnosis. RESULTS: The study is funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the National Institutes of Health (2U01NS105565). The protocol was approved by the Albert Einstein College of Medicine Institutional Review Board in September 2022. A validation study was completed to select cut scores for the 5-Cog battery. Among the 76 patients enrolled, the resulting clinical diagnoses were as follows: dementia in 32 (42%); mild cognitive impairment in 28 (37%); subjective cognitive concerns without objective cognitive impairment in 12 (16%); no cognitive diagnosis assigned in 2 (3%). The mean scores were Picture-Based Memory Impairment Screen 5.8 (SD 2.7), Symbol Match 27.2 (SD 18.2), and Subjective Motoric Cognitive Risk 2.4 (SD 1.7). The cut scores for an abnormal or positive result on the 5-Cog components were as follows: Picture-Based Memory Impairment Screen ≤6 (range 0-8), Symbol Match ≤25 (range 0-65), and Subjective Motoric Cognitive Risk >5 (range 0-7). As of December 2024, a total of 12 clinics had completed the onboarding processes, and 2369 patients had been enrolled. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study will facilitate the rapid adaptation and dissemination of this effective and practical clinical tool across diverse primary care clinical settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05515224; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05515224. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/60471.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.063 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.015 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".