P3‐261: Concurrent validity of the Alzheimer's Questionnaire (AQ)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Alzheimer's Questionnaire (AQ) has been established as a valid and accurate informant-based screening questionnaire for both Alzheimer's disease (AD) and its prodrome, amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI). Although the validity and diagnostic accuracy of the AQ have been established, its performance in comparison to other screening instruments has not been investigated. The purpose of this study is to establish concurrent validity of the AQ by comparing it to other commonly used screening instruments and also with standard neuropsychological tests. Data from 146 individuals were used in the study. 39 amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) cases and 34 Alzheimer's disease (AD) cases were match on age, education, and gender to 73 cognitively normal individuals. The sample had a mean age of 82.54 ± 7.77 and a mean education level of 14.61 ± 2.61 years. 82 females and 64 males made up the sample. The CDR Sum of Boxes, Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ), mini-mental state exam (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and a battery of neuropsychological tests were compared to the AQ total score. ANOVA, with Bonferroni adjustment, yielded statistically significant group differences for CN vs. aMCI (P <.001), CN vs. AD (p <.001), and aMCI vs. AD (P <.001) for the AQ, FAQ, MMSE, Clock, and MoCA. These group differences yielded to moderate to strong effect sizes. The AQ correlated strongly with the FAQ (r = .78) and with the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (r = .74). Moderate correlations between the AQ and MMSE (r = -.61), AQ and MoCA (r = -.44), AQ and AVLT Delayed Recall (r = -.53) were observed. Concurrent validity was established for the AQ as it correlated strongly with the FAQ and CDR Sum of Boxes. In addition, the AQ correlated moderately with the MoCA, MMSE, and AVLT Delayed Recall. The findings of this study show that AQ is comparable to other measures of function and cognition. These results lend more support to the validity of AQ and its utility as a screening instrument for aMCI and AD. The AQ might also be useful in clinical trials for aMCI.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".