Diagnostic accuracy, reliability, and construct validity of the German quick mild cognitive impairment screen
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Early detection of cognitive impairment is among the top research priorities aimed at reducing the global burden of dementia. Currently used screening tools have high sensitivity but lack specificity at their original cut-off, while decreasing the cut-off was repeatedly shown to improve specificity, but at the cost of lower sensitivity. In 2012, a new screening tool was introduced that aims to overcome these limitations – the Quick mild cognitive impairment screen (Qmci). The original English Qmci has been rigorously validated and demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy with both good sensitivity and specificity. We aimed to determine the optimal cut-off value for the German Qmci, and evaluate its diagnostic accuracy, reliability (internal consistency) and construct validity. Methods We retrospectively analyzed data from healthy older adults (HOA; n = 43) and individuals who have a clinical diagnosis of ‘mild neurocognitive disorder’ (mNCD; n = 37) with a biomarker supported characterization of the etiology of mNCD of three studies of the ‘Brain-IT’ project. Using Youden’s Index, we calculated the optimal cut-off score to distinguish between HOA and mNCD. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to evaluate diagnostic accuracy based on the area under the curve (AUC). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. Reliability (internal consistency) was analyzed by calculating Cronbach’s α. Construct validity was assessed by analyzing convergent validity between Qmci-G subdomain scores and reference assessments measuring the same neurocognitive domain. Results The optimal cut-off score for the Qmci-G was ≤ 67 (AUC = 0.96). This provided a sensitivity of 91.9% and a specificity of 90.7%. The PPV and NPV were 89.5% and 92.9%, respectively. Cronbach’s α of the Qmci-G was 0.71 (CI95% [0.65 to 0.78]). The Qmci-G demonstrated good construct validity for subtests measuring learning and memory. Subtests that measure executive functioning and/or visuo-spatial skills showed mixed findings and/or did not correlate as strongly as expected with reference assessments. Conclusion Our findings corroborate the existing evidence of the Qmci’s good diagnostic accuracy, reliability, and construct validity. Additionally, the Qmci shows potential in resolving the limitations of commonly used screening tools, such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. To verify these findings for the Qmci-G, testing in clinical environments and/or primary health care and direct comparisons with standard screening tools utilized in these settings are warranted.
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 | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,120 | 0,001 |
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 ».