MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3096394540 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-143169

Evidence of Educational Bias in Cognitive Screening of Adults with Sickle Cell Disease: Comparison of Available Tools and Possible Strategies for Mitigation

2020· article· en· W3096394540 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Stéphanie Forté, Maryline Couette, Damien Oudin Doglioni, Denis Soulières, Kevin H.M. Kuo, Pablo Bartolucci

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders
Établissements canadiensUniversity of TorontoCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversity Health Network
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMontreal Cognitive AssessmentDementiaCognitionPopulationGerontologyMedicineDiseaseInclusion (mineral)PsychologyCognitive impairmentPediatricsClinical psychologyFamily medicinePsychiatryEnvironmental healthPathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Cognitive impairment is a dreaded complication of sickle cell disease (SCD) that impacts quality of life, school performance and employment. In 2020, the American Society of Hematology issued a strong recommendation that clinicians supervising the care of adults with SCD conduct surveillance for cognitive impairment using simplified signaling questions (DeBaun, 2020). However, guidance on the optimal screening strategy is lacking and several available tools are biased by language and education. The Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) was specifically designed for cognitive screening in multicultural populations (Storey, 2004). In the general elderly population, RUDAS is less biased by education than the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (Naqvi, 2015). Hypothesis: In adults with SCD, performance on the RUDAS is less influenced by educational attainment when compared to the MoCA. Our primary aim was to estimate the prevalence of suspected cognitive impairment using RUDAS and MoCA in adult SCD patients. The secondary aims were to examine for the presence of educational bias and to develop mitigation strategies in case of such a bias. Methods: Study design: cross-sectional study at UMGRR clinic at Henri Mondor Hospital, Créteil (France). Inclusion criteria: out-patients ≥18 years-old; all SCD phenotypes. Exclusion criteria: inability to obtain informed consent and/or follow study instructions. Intervention: Cognitive screening was performed using the RUDAS (translated to French by Philippe Desmarais), MoCA (third alternative version) and an additional visuospatial task of copying overlapping triangles (from the French BEC96 assessment). RUDAS and MoCA scores <28 and <26, respectively, were considered suggestive of cognitive impairment per previous studies (Basic, 2009 and Nasredinne, 2005) and patients were referred for definite neuropsychological evaluation. Survey on demographics and screening for depression and anxiety using Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) were completed by the participants. Educational attainment was scored based on the number of years of schooling for the highest completed diploma. Statistical plan: linear regression was performed to identify possible associations between RUDAS, MoCA and social determinants of health. Results: Among the first 45 consecutive adult SCD patients undergoing routine cognitive screening, the median age was 39 (range 19-67). RUDAS and MoCA scores suggestive of mild cognitive impairment were found in 33/45 (73.3%) and 29/45 (64.4%) participants, respectively. There was a strong correlation between both tests (r=0.48, p=0.001). Both RUDAS and MoCA scores increased significantly with increasing level of education (r=0.36, p=0.015 and r=0.39, p=0.007, respectively), but were not significantly influenced by the HADS score. RUDAS and MoCA test items most biased by education were visuoconstructional tasks. Tasks assessing executive functioning and language were also biased in MoCA. Substituting the 3D visuospatial task of the RUDAS by a 2D task reduced the educational bias (r=0.20, p=0.045). Adding 1 point for highest level of education £ 12 years after kindergarten did significantly mitigate the effect of education on the RUDAS but only partially for the MoCA (r=0.23, p=0.131 and r=0.30, p=0.047). Conclusions: Overall, these results suggest there is an educational bias in the neurocognitive screening of adult SCD patients using available tools such as the RUDAS and MoCA. Although RUDAS was less biased overall, visuospatial assessment remained biased. The task often considered more "culture-fair" is still subject to the impact of educational potential (Statucka, 2019). We provide different strategies to mitigate education bias when assessing with RUDAS. Thus, the RUDAS adjusted by the educational level allows to systematically identify SCD patients in need of comprehensive neurocognitive testing. Prospective validation is ongoing. Disclosures Forté: Canadian Hematology Society: Research Funding; Pfizer - Global Medical Grants: Research Funding. Soulieres:Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kuo:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bioverativ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Bartolucci:Roche: Consultancy; Innovhem: Other; AGIOS: Consultancy; Bluebird: Consultancy; Emmaus: Consultancy; Addmedica: Research Funding; Fabre Foundation: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird: Research Funding; GBT: Consultancy; ADDMEDICA: Consultancy; HEMANEXT: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,074
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,136
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,926
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,390

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0740,136
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,003
Bibliométrie0,0050,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,071
Tête enseignante GPT0,305
Écart entre enseignants0,234 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
DomaineMéthodes
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2020
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetHemoglobinopathies and Related DisordersTravaux en français237 207