Retrospective data collected on SATURN, a public domain self-administered cognitive screening test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurocognitive disorders are under-diagnosed. A previously validated public domain cognitive screening test, Self-Administered Tasks Uncovering Risk of Neurodegeneration (SATURN), may address this need. However, there are no prior reports of its performance in its intended clinical settings. From a single dementia clinic, we retrospectively collected and analysed scores on SATURN, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Saint Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS), and the Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ), obtained over a two-year period. We found that SATURN was well-correlated with each of the other assessments (MoCA: r = 0.82, MMSE: r = 0.76, SLUMS: r = 0.81, and FAQ: r = -0.55). In receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses, SATURN was statistically non-inferior to those other tests, and indeed was usually numerically (but not statistically) superior. In short, SATURN compared favorably to legacy cognitive screening instruments in regular clinical practice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
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".