Validation of the standard assessment of global everyday activities (SAGEA) scale for dementia diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Standardised questionnaires of cognitive symptoms and cognitive-related function can assist in diagnosing dementia. The Standardised Assessment of Global Everyday Activities (SAGEA) is a 15-item questionnaire, developed to measure functional status by capturing cognitive symptoms, basic and instrumental activities of daily living, participation in activites, and mobility. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to validate the SAGEA as a tool for assessing cognitive dysfunction in dementia. METHODS: Participants with dementia, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or subjective cognitive decline (SCD) were selected from the clinic-based Prospective Registry for Persons with Memory Symptoms (PROMPT), and cognitively asymptomatic, unimpaired controls were selected from the Canadian Platform for Research Online to Investigate Health, Quality of Life, Cognition, Behaviour, Function and Caregiving in Ageing study. RESULTS: SAGEA scores correlated well with the Lawton-Brody scale for instrumental activities of daily living (r = -0.68, P < 0.0001). SAGEA scores differed significantly across participant groups, highest for individuals with dementia (17.7 ± 8.59) followed by MCI (10.8 ± 9.10), SCD (8.07 ± 7.06) and controls (1.60 ± 2.07). The SAGEA classified dementia with an AUC of 0.97, sensitivity of 94.5% and specificity of 94.6% at a cut-off point of ≥6 points based on Youden's index. A dementia diagnosis algorithm based on the SAGEA distinguished dementia from controls with a sensitivity of 68% and specificity of 100%. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the utility of the SAGEA as an adjunct to diagnosing dementia and a potentially useful screening tool.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".