The Informant AD8 is Superior to Participant AD8 in Detecting Cognitive Impairment in a Memory Clinic Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The informant AD8 has good discriminatory indices in detecting questionable dementia. However, studies on participant AD8 yielded inconsistent results. This study aims to investigate the discriminatory ability of the AD8 in detecting cognitive impairment at a memory clinic by comparing the informant AD8, participant AD8, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). The AD8 was administered to 280 participant-informant dyads. The MoCA and MMSE were administered to all participants, who subsequently received a comprehensive clinical and neuropsychological assessment leading to a consensus diagnosis and a Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was used to compare the discriminatory ability of AD8, MoCA, and MMSE. Participants were Chinese (83.6%) females (54.3%) with a mean age and education of 73.4 ± 8.6 years and 6.2 ± 5.6 years, respectively. The discriminant validity of the informant AD8 was significantly superior to the participant AD8 in detecting cognitive impairment (CDR ≥ 0.5) {Area Under Curve (AUC) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.96 (0.93-0.98) versus 0.66 (0.58-0.74), p < 0.01}. Furthermore, the informant AD8 was equivalent to MoCA and MMSE in detecting cognitive impairment {AUC [95% CI]: MoCA [0.98 (0.96-0.99)]; MMSE [0.95 (0.93-0.98)]}. The informant AD8 (≥2) had very good sensitivity and specificity, while the participant AD8 (≥2) had suboptimal sensitivity and specificity in detecting cognitive impairment (sensitivity 0.93 versus 0.59; specificity 0.87 versus 0.65; 91.8% versus 60% correctly classified). The informant AD8 is superior to the participant AD8, and equivalent to the MMSE and MoCA in screening for cognitive impairment in memory clinic patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".