MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6958412550 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.28194005

Supplementary Material for: Adaption and validation of the Greek version of Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III scale as a screening tool for perioperative cognitive impairment detection

2025· dataset· en· W6958412550 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2025
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstruct validityMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPerioperativeNeurocognitiveCognitionReliability (semiconductor)Cronbach's alphaScale (ratio)Cognitive impairmentFace validity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Postoperative cognitive dysfunction constitutes an extremely prevalent implication in individuals subjected to cardiac or non-cardiac surgery. This study aims to assess the validity and reliability of a culturally adapted Greek version of the Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination III (ACE-III) scale as a screening tool for perioperative neurocognitive status determination in elderly surgical patients. Methods: A cross-cultural adaptation and validation of instruments throughout the a cross-sectional study was conducted. The study sample consisted of 128 individuals over 55 years old scheduled for surgical intervention. All participants were screened twice; at the preadmission clinic and the day before surgery using the already established MoCA scale and the culturally adapted Greek version of the ACE-III scale. Subjects with a MoCA score of < 26 constituted the cognitively impaired group. Results: Regarding construct validity, ACE-III’s performance in detecting cognitive impairment was excellent (AUC =0.942; 95%CI 0.899-0.971). Convergent validity between ACE-III and MoCA scales was excellent (r= 0.876; 95%CI 0.839-0.905). Known group validity was confirmed since advanced age and lower educational attainment adversely impacted ACE-III’s total score (p<0.001). Additionally, specialists suggested face validity (mean 8.7 out of 10, SD 1.1). In terms of reliability, ACE-III demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.786) and high inter-rater (ICC=0.936 [95%CI 0.921-0.941]) and test-retest reliability (ICC=0.972 (95%CI 0.958-0.981). Conclusion: The Greek version of ACE-III is a valid, and reliable screening tool that could be routinely employed perioperatively as a valid alternative to the MoCA test to distinguish the mild cognitively impaired from healthy elderly candidates for surgical interventions.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.6690.188

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.263 · 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.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→French-language works237,207→