MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097929804 · doi:10.1136/jnnp.2004.045963

Brief cognitive assessment for patients with cerebral small vessel disease

2005· article· en· W2097929804 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael O’Sullivan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKing's College London
KeywordsLeukoaraiosisDementiaNeuropsychological assessmentExecutive dysfunctionNeuropsychologyCognitionExecutive functionsVascular dementiaStroke (engine)MedicinePsychologyLacunar strokeCognitive testMontreal Cognitive AssessmentAudiologyCardiologyDiseaseInternal medicineNeuroscienceIschemic strokeIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cerebral small vessel disease is a common cause of cognitive impairment and vascular dementia. The cognitive deficit differs from that in Alzheimer's disease, with greater executive/attentional dysfunction and relatively intact episodic memory. OBJECTIVE: To develop brief assessment tools that are better adapted to the neuropsychological profile of cerebral small vessel disease. METHODS: 32 subjects with ischaemic leukoaraiosis (history of lacunar stroke and leukoaraiosis on MRI), aged 50 to 84 years, and 17 age and education matched controls had a brief executive assessment, which took 20 minutes to administer, and a wide range of additional tests. The ability of the brief executive assessment to discriminate between groups-both individually and in combination-was evaluated and compared with that of the whole battery. RESULTS: The brief executive assessment provided good sensitivity and specificity for identifying subjects with ischaemic leukoaraiosis (sensitivity 88%, specificity 88%, using the optimal combination of scores). The best individual tests were trail making and digit symbol, which were both far more sensitive than the mini-mental state examination (MMSE). The ability to discriminate between groups was maintained in subjects with MMSE > 27 and across the whole age range. The brief executive assessment performed well compared with the whole battery, with additional tests accounting for only a further 12% of between-group variance. CONCLUSIONS: The brief executive assessment was sensitive to deficits found in ischaemic leukoaraiosis and discriminated them from the cognitive effects of healthy aging. The assessment has potential for bedside use and as a cognitive end point for clinical trials.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations121
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & PsychiatrySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207