MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414406689 · doi:10.4103/tpsy.tpsy_31_25

Daily Living Activities as Indicators of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Subjective Cognitive Decline

2025· article· en· W4414406689 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arpita Roy Choudhury, Susmita Halder

Bibliographic record

VenueTaiwanese Journal of Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActivities of daily livingCognitive impairmentDementiaCognitionRating scaleCognitive declineClinical Dementia RatingMeal preparation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives: With aging, we gradually lose our functional ability which is assessed through understanding the difficulty of doing activities of daily living (ADL). Advanced ADL (AADL) performance steadily worsens with declining cognitive function, followed by instrumental ADL (IADL) performance, and finally, the incapacity to do basic ADLs. In this study, we intended to early identify mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and to focus on understanding the ADLs as an indicator to differentiate between the elderly with MCI and subjective memory complaint (SMC). Methods: The study sample consisted of 30 patients with SMC and MCI, respectively, within the age of 60–80 years with at least eight years of education and being noninstitutionalized. Those patients were divided into the two groups based on the diagnostic criteria. Furthermore, Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) Scale were used for screening. AADL scale was used for assessing the performance on AADL. Results: The study findings showed that a significant difference existed between the MCI and SMC groups in ADLs ( p < 0.05). We also found that significantly higher difficulties in the item in shopping alone for clothes, household necessities, or groceries ( p < 0.001), remembering appointments, family occasions, holidays, medications ( p < 0.001), preparing a balanced meal ( p < 0.01), and assembling tax records, business affairs, and papers ( p < 0.05). Conclusion: The study findings indicate that IADLs and AADLs can be considered as indicators of MCI and SCD.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueTaiwanese Journal of Psychiatry→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→