MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6980670738

Comparison of DBFS with MOCA and MMSE tools for MCI Screening

2023· article· en· W6980670738 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueResearchOnline at James Cook University (James Cook University) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentTest (biology)CognitionCognitive impairmentState (computer science)Mini–Mental State Examination
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has been associated with many diseases. The MCI could be a marker for the early diagnosis of certain diseases. Early detection of MCI could be beneficial for restoration of cognitive reserves. One hundred and five subjects were included in the study, underwent the Digital Brain Function Screen (DBFS) test as well as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test and 73 subjects took the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) test. DBFS test and retest was taken by 16 subjects. The test scores of DBFS tool showed significant positive correlation with MoCA and MMSE test scores. In conclusion, the DBFS tool could be an effective digital tool which can overcome the disadvantages of traditional tools of screening MCI like MoCA and MMSE.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearchOnline at James Cook University (James Cook University)Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207