MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109050860 · doi:10.1017/s1041610212001780

COST: Cognitive State Test, a brief screening battery for Alzheimer disease in illiterate and literate patients

2012· article· en· W2109050860 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gülsen Babacan-Yıldız, Ahmet Turan Işık, Emel Ur, Emine Aydemir, Can Ertas, Merve Çebi, Pınar Soysal, Esra Gürsoy, Mehmet Kolukısa, Gülşen Kocaman, Arif Çelebi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Psychogeriatrics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaClinical Dementia RatingCronbach's alphaMontreal Cognitive AssessmentReceiver operating characteristicGeriatric Depression ScaleMedicineCognitionMini–Mental State ExaminationGerontologyDepression (economics)Discriminant validityPhysical therapyPsychologyPsychiatryPsychometricsClinical psychologyDiseaseInternal medicineInternal consistencyDepressive symptoms

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The aim was to develop a brief screening battery, Cognitive State Test (COST), for detecting the presence of dementia in both illiterate and literate patients and to assess its validity and reliability. METHODS: COST is a cognitive screening tool that consists of almost all cognitive domains. It takes 5-7 minutes to administer, and has a maximum score of 30. Data were obtained from 114 healthy volunteers and 74 Alzheimer dementia (AD) patients. Subjects' age divided into two groups: A1: <65 years; and A2: ≥65 years and their education level divided into three groups: E1: illiterate; E2: 1-5 years; and E3: ≥6 years. For assessing concurrent validity, total COST score was compared to the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL). Sensitivity and specificity were determined through a discriminant analysis using the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves. Internal consistency was measured using Cronbach's coefficient α. RESULTS: For normal and AD subjects, mean age was 64.9±9.8 years (50 women and 64 men) and 67.2±13.2 years (55 women and 19 men), respectively. Schooling ranged from 0-15 years (mean 5.7±4.2 and 3.3±3.8 years, respectively), and 21 and 37 subjects were illiterate, respectively. The COST significantly and positively correlated with MMSE and MoCA, and significantly and inversely correlated with CDR, the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), and BADL. In the E1, E2, and E3 education groups, the optimal cut-off points of COST chosen for diagnosis of AD were 23/24 (sensitivity: 81%, specificity: 99%), 24/25 (sensitivity: 75%, specificity: 86%), and 26/27 (sensitivity: 77%, specificity: 84%), respectively. When illiterate and literate subjects were then pooled, the optimal cut-off score of COST was 24/25, which yielded a sensitivity of 81% and a specificity of 87%. Reliability of the COST was good (0.86). CONCLUSION: The COST is a valid and reliable screening battery for detection of dementia both in the illiterate and the literate Alzheimer 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 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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Citations41
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational PsychogeriatricsSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207