MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cognitive Tests to Detect Dementia

2015· review· en· W2151989011 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kelvin Tsoi, Joyce Y.C. Chan, Hoyee W. Hirai, Samuel Yeung Shan Wong, Timothy Kwok

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Internal Medicine · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMedicineReceiver operating characteristicMini–Mental State ExaminationCognitive testMEDLINETest (biology)CognitionPsychiatryInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Dementia is a global public health problem. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is a proprietary instrument for detecting dementia, but many other tests are also available. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of all cognitive tests for the detection of dementia. DATA SOURCES: Literature searches were performed on the list of dementia screening tests in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychoINFO from the earliest available dates stated in the individual databases until September 1, 2014. Because Google Scholar searches literature with a combined ranking algorithm on citation counts and keywords in each article, our literature search was extended to Google Scholar with individual test names and dementia screening as a supplementary search. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were eligible if participants were interviewed face to face with respective screening tests, and findings were compared with criterion standard diagnostic criteria for dementia. Bivariate random-effects models were used, and the area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve was used to present the overall performance. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were the main outcomes. RESULTS: Eleven screening tests were identified among 149 studies with more than 49,000 participants. Most studies used the MMSE (n = 102) and included 10,263 patients with dementia. The combined sensitivity and specificity for detection of dementia were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.78-0.84) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.87-0.91), respectively. Among the other 10 tests, the Mini-Cog test and Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised (ACE-R) had the best diagnostic performances, which were comparable to that of the MMSE (Mini-Cog, 0.91 sensitivity and 0.86 specificity; ACE-R, 0.92 sensitivity and 0.89 specificity). Subgroup analysis revealed that only the Montreal Cognitive Assessment had comparable performance to the MMSE on detection of mild cognitive impairment with 0.89 sensitivity and 0.75 specificity. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Besides the MMSE, there are many other tests with comparable diagnostic performance for detecting dementia. The Mini-Cog test and the ACE-R are the best alternative screening tests for dementia, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment is the best alternative for mild cognitive impairment.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0140.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations877
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Internal MedicineSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207