Four Sensitive Screening Tools to Detect Cognitive Dysfunction in Geriatric Emergency Department Patients: Brief Alzheimer’s Screen, Short Blessed Test, Ottawa 3DY, and the Caregiver-completed AD8
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Cognitive dysfunction, including dementia and delirium, is prevalent in geriatric emergency department (ED) patients, but often remains undetected. One barrier to reliable identification of acutely or chronically impaired cognitive function is the lack of an acceptable screening tool. While multiple brief screening instruments have been derived, ED validation trials have not previously demonstrated tools that are appropriately sensitive for clinical use. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to evaluate and compare the Ottawa 3DY (O3DY), Brief Alzheimer's Screen (BAS), Short Blessed Test (SBT), and caregiver-completed AD8 (cAD8) diagnostic test performance for cognitive dysfunction in geriatric ED patients using the Mini Mental Status Exam (MMSE) as the criterion standard. A secondary objective was to assess the diagnostic accuracy for the cAD8 (which is an informant-based instrument) when used in combination with the other performance-based screening tools. METHODS: In an observational cross-sectional cohort study at one urban academic university-affiliated medical center, trained research assistants (RAs) collected patients' responses on the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit, BAS, and SBT. When available, reliable caregivers completed the cAD8. The MMSE was then obtained. The O3DY was reconstructed from elements of the MMSE and the BAS. Consenting subjects were non-critically ill, English-speaking adults over age 65 years, who had not received potentially sedating medications prior to or during cognitive testing. Using an MMSE score of ≤23 as the criterion standard for cognitive dysfunction, the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) were computed. Venn diagrams were constructed to quantitatively compare the degree of overlap among positive test results between the performance-based instruments. RESULTS: The prevalence of cognitive dysfunction for the 163 patients enrolled with complete data collection was 37%, including 5.5% with delirium. Dementia was self-reported in 3%. Caregivers were available to complete the cAD8 for 56% of patients. The SBT, BAS, and O3DY each demonstrated 95% sensitivity, compared with 83% sensitivity for the cAD8. The SBT had a superior specificity of 65%. No combination of instruments with the cAD8 significantly improved diagnostic accuracy. The SBT provided the optimal overlap with the MMSE. CONCLUSIONS: The SBT, BAS, and O3DY are three brief performance-based screening instruments to identify geriatric patients with cognitive dysfunction more rapidly than the MMSE. Among these three instruments, the SBT provides the best diagnostic test characteristics and overlap with MMSE results. The addition of the cAD8 to the other instruments does not enhance diagnostic accuracy.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».