MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1988386021 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2011.05.722

P1‐440: A novel screening approach for MCI/AD

2011· article· en· W1988386021 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cheryl A. Luis, Laila Abdullah, Ghania Ait‐Ghezala, Andrew P. Keegan, Scott Ferguson, Fiona Crawford, Michael Mullan

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineNeuropsychologyCognitive impairmentNeuroimagingLumbar punctureCognitionCognitive declineDiseaseMini–Mental State ExaminationInternal medicinePhysical therapyDementiaPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A practical method for earlier detection of cognitive decline in the elderly, suitable for wide-scale use, is critically needed. Historically cognitive screening has been utilized, and with training, instruments can be administered by allied health personnel. More recently, advances in neuroimaging techniques are yielding promising results but these resources are not readily available to patients in the general community. Biomarkers of AD in the CSF or periphery have potential but lumbar puncture is an invasive method. However, blood for biomarker studies is a suitable alternative as it is easy and well tolerated procedure. In this study, we examined the use of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCa) with serum beta-amyloid (Aß) 40 and 42 to determine their combined usefulness in diagnosis of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). Using a cross-sectional research design, we recruited consenting community-dwelling subjects who were administered the MoCa [and Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) for comparison] by trained researchers. All subjects subsequently underwent diagnostic workup involving neurological and neuropsychological evaluation, and if applicable neuroimaging. Thirty subjects enrolled were deemed cognitively normal and 60 were classified as MCI/early AD based on the diagnostic work-up. All blood samples were analyzed in blinded fashion and in duplicates using commercially available Aß40 and Aß42 ELISA kits. Group comparisons are shown in Table 1. Female gender was the only statistically significant demographic variable. As expected, groups differed on MoCa and MMSE, Aß42, and the ratio of Aß42/Aß40. Serum Aß40 did not differ between groups. Table 2 and Figures 1 and 2 show the data from the ROC analyses using individual tests and biomarkers, and in combination. The use of the MoCa and the ratio of Aß42/Aß40 demonstrated the highest sensitivity (96.2%) and specificity (92.9%). The use of MoCa test (a sensitive cognitive screen) and the ratio of serum Aß42/Aß40 proved to be highly sensitive (and specific) for differentiating cognitively normal elderly controls and individuals who were diagnosed with cognitive impairment. This approach is practical and cost-effective and warrants further study, particularly in a primary care setting where most at-risk elders are likely to present. Comparison of performance of MMSE and MoCA in combination with Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→