MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071040181 · doi:10.1097/wad.0b013e3182769731

Comparative Analysis of the Alzheimer Questionnaire (AQ) With the CDR Sum of Boxes, MoCA, and MMSE

2012· article· en· W2071040181 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Malek‐Ahmadi, Kathryn Davis, Christine M. Belden, Marwan N. Sabbagh

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitive impairmentAlzheimer's diseaseAudiologyPsychologyMini–Mental State ExaminationDiagnostic accuracyCognitionDiseaseMedicineGerontologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Alzheimer Questionnaire (AQ) has been established as a valid and accurate informant-based screening questionnaire for Alzheimer disease and amnestic mild cognitive impairment. Although the AQ's validity and diagnostic accuracy has been established, its performance in comparison with other instruments has not. Thirty-nine amnestic mild cognitive impairment cases and 34 Alzheimer disease cases were matched on the basis of age, education, and sex to 73 cognitively normal individuals. The sample had a mean age of 82.54±7.77 years and a mean education level of 14.61±2.61 years. The diagnostic accuracy of the CDR Sum of Boxes, Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were compared with the AQ. The AQ correlated strongly with the CDR Sum of Boxes (r=0.79) and demonstrated similar diagnostic accuracy with the MoCA and MMSE. These results suggest that the AQ is comparable with other established informant-based and patient-based measures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations23
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer Disease & Associated DisordersSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207