State, trait, and accumulated features of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive Subscale (ADAS‐Cog) in mild Alzheimer's disease
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) is used to assess decline in memory, language, and praxis in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Methods: A latent state-trait model with autoregressive effects was used to determine how much of the ADAS-Cog item measurement was reliable, and of that, how much of the information was occasion specific (state) versus consistent (trait or accumulated from one visit to the next). Results: = 341) were assessed four times over 24 months. Praxis items were generally unreliable as were some memory items. Language items were generally the most reliable, and this increased over time. Only two ADAS-Cog items showed reliability >0.70 at all four assessments, word recall (memory) and naming (language). Of the reliable information, language items exhibited greater consistency (63.4% to 88.2%) than occasion specificity, and of the consistent information, language items tended to reflect effects of AD progression that accumulated from one visit to the next (35.5% to 45.3%). In contrast, reliable information from praxis items tended to come from trait information. The reliable information in the memory items reflected more consistent than occasion-specific information, but they varied between items in the relative amounts of trait versus accumulated effects. Conclusions: Although the ADAS-Cog was designed to track cognitive decline, most items were unreliable, and each item captured different amounts of information related to occasion-specific, trait, and accumulated effects of AD over time. These latent properties complicate the interpretation of trends seen in ordinary statistical analyses of trials and other clinical studies with repeated ADAS-Cog item measures. Highlights: Studies have described unfavorable psychometric properties of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog), bringing into question its ability to track changes in cognition uniformly over time. There remains a need to estimate how much of the ADAS-Cog measurement is reliable, of that how much is occasion specific versus consistent, and of the consistent information, how much represents enduring traits versus autoregressive effects (i.e., effects of Alzheimer's disease [AD] progression carried over from one assessment to the next).A latent state-trait model with autoregressive effects in mild AD found most items to be unreliable, and each item to capture different amounts of occasion-specific, trait, and autoregressive information. Language items, specifically, naming and the memory item word recall, were the most reliable.Psychometric idiosyncrasies of individual items complicate the interpretation of their summed score, biasing ordinary statistical analyses of repeated measures in mild AD. Future studies should consider item trajectories individually.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».