MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122164720 · doi:10.1017/s1041610210000876

The Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Clinician rating scale (NPI-C): reliability and validity of a revised assessment of neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia

2010· article· en· W2122164720 on OpenAlexaff
Kate de Medeiros, Philippe Robert, Serge Gauthier, Florindo Stella, Antonis Politis, Jeannie‐Marie Leoutsakos, Fernando Taragano, Janus Kremer, Andrea Brugnolo, Anton P. Porsteinsson, Yonas E. Geda, Henry Brodaty, Gábor Gazdag, Jeffrey L. Cummings, Constantine G. Lyketsos

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Psychogeriatrics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute on AgingU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsApathyDementiaPsychologyConvergent validityRating scaleClinical psychologyReliability (semiconductor)Clinical Dementia RatingPsychiatryScale (ratio)PsychometricsDepression (economics)MedicineCognitionDiseaseDevelopmental psychologyCognitive impairment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) affect almost all patients with dementia and are a major focus of study and treatment. Accurate assessment of NPS through valid, sensitive and reliable measures is crucial. Although current NPS measures have many strengths, they also have some limitations (e.g. acquisition of data is limited to informants or caregivers as respondents, limited depth of items specific to moderate dementia). Therefore, we developed a revised version of the NPI, known as the NPI-C. The NPI-C includes expanded domains and items, and a clinician-rating methodology. This study evaluated the reliability and convergent validity of the NPI-C at ten international sites (seven languages). METHODS: Face validity for 78 new items was obtained through a Delphi panel. A total of 128 dyads (caregivers/patients) from three severity categories of dementia (mild = 58, moderate = 49, severe = 21) were interviewed separately by two trained raters using two rating methods: the original NPI interview and a clinician-rated method. Rater 1 also administered four additional, established measures: the Apathy Evaluation Scale, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Index, and the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia. Intraclass correlations were used to determine inter-rater reliability. Pearson correlations between the four relevant NPI-C domains and their corresponding outside measures were used for convergent validity. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability was strong for most items. Convergent validity was moderate (apathy and agitation) to strong (hallucinations and delusions; agitation and aberrant vocalization; and depression) for clinician ratings in NPI-C domains. CONCLUSION: Overall, the NPI-C shows promise as a versatile tool which can accurately measure NPS and which uses a uniform scale system to facilitate data comparisons across studies.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.341 · 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

Citations268
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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