Screening Cognitive Performance with the Resident Assessment Instrument for Mental Health Cognitive Performance Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The validity of the Cognitive Performance Scale (CPS) embedded in the Resident Assessment Instrument-Mental Health (RAI-MH) was evaluated among adult psychiatric inpatients. METHODS: The CPS is a brief measure of cognitive performance, with scores ranging from 0 (intact) to 6 (very severe impairment). The CPS scores were compared with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores for 215 adult psychiatric inpatients. RESULTS: The CPS scores were significantly correlated with MMSE scores (r = -0.69, P < 0.001) and MoCA scores (r = -0.69, P < 0.001). Higher scores on the CPS were associated with greater functional impairment, older age, and a greater prevalence of dementia diagnoses than lower CPS scores. CONCLUSIONS: Pilot data show the CPS is a valid screening measure of cognitive performance among adult psychiatric inpatients. Additional research is needed to replicate our study using a larger sample with more diverse mental health conditions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".