Development and validation of the Japanese version of the Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale for Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aging population has led to a rise in dementia and mild cognitive impairment, increasing challenges for healthcare and caregiver burden. The Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale (BADLS) is a UK-developed tool that assesses activities of daily living impairment in dementia, but its use in Japan requires cultural and linguistic adaptation. This study aimed to develop a Japanese version of the BADLS (BADLS-J), and evaluate its reliability and validity. METHODS: The BADLS was translated into Japanese, back-translated and culturally adapted. A pilot study (24 patients) and a validation study (113 patients) were carried out. Cognitive and physical functions were assessed using the Japanese version of the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the Barthel Index. RESULTS: The BADLS-J showed high reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.94; test-retest Spearman's r = 0.88). Significant correlations were observed with cognitive measures (Japanese version of the Mini-Mental State Examination: r = -0.71; Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment: r = -0.60) and physical function indicators. Cultural adaptations, such as modifying items on eating utensils and money management, enhanced its validity. CONCLUSIONS: The BADLS-J is a reliable and valid tool for assessing activities of daily living impairment in dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Its use might facilitate early intervention and improve dementia care in Japan. Further research is needed to confirm its applicability across diverse populations. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2025; 25: 1131-1135.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".