MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156246518 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.113.001724

Test Accuracy of Short Screening Tests for Diagnosis of Delirium or Cognitive Impairment in an Acute Stroke Unit Setting

2013· article· en· W2156246518 on OpenAlex
Rosalind Lees, Sinead Corbet, Christina Johnston, Emma Moffitt, Grahame Shaw, Terence J. Quinn

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChest Heart and Stroke ScotlandRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentDeliriumMedicineInterquartile rangeStroke (engine)Cognitive impairmentCognitive testConfidence intervalGlasgow Coma ScaleCognitionDementiaPhysical therapyPediatricsInternal medicinePsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend cognitive screening in acute stroke. Various instruments are available, with no consensus on a preferred tool. We aimed to describe test accuracy of brief screening tools for diagnosis of cognitive impairment and delirium in acute stroke. METHODS: We collected data on sequential stroke unit admission in a single center. Four assessors trained in cognitive testing independently performed screening and reference tests. Brief assessments comprised the following: 10- and 4-point Abbreviated Mental Test (AMT-10; AMT-4); 4-A Test (4AT); Clock Drawing Test (CDT); Cog-4; and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). We also recorded the multidisciplinary team's informal review using single question (SQ). We compared against reference standards of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Confusion Assessment Method for delirium using usual diagnostic cutpoints. For MoCA, we described effects of lowering the diagnostic threshold to MoCA <24 and MoCA <20. We described sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. RESULTS: Over a 10-week period, 111 subjects had cognitive assessment data. Subjects were 50% male (n=55), and median age was 74 years (interquartile range, 64-85). AMT-4, AMT-10, and SQ all had excellent (1.00) specificity for detection of cognitive impairment, although sensitivity was poor (all <0.60). The 4AT had greatest sensitivity for detecting delirium (1.00 [confidence interval [CI], 0.74-1.00]) and reasonable specificity (0.82 [CI, 0.72-0.89]). Properties of 4AT for detection of cognitive impairment, at the traditional MoCA threshold, were also good (sensitivity, 0.86; specificity, 0.78). Using diagnostic thresholds of MoCA ≤26, <24, and <20 gave proportions with cognitive impairments of 86%, 61%, and 49%, respectively, with resulting changes in screening test properties. At lower MoCA thresholds, CDT had favorable sensitivity and specificity (MoCA <20: sensitivity, 0.93, specificity, 0.66; MoCA <24: sensitivity, 0.85, specificity, 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Many brief screening assessments are specific but not sensitive for detection of cognitive impairment in acute stroke. Our primary analysis suggests that 4AT is a reasonable choice for delirium and cognitive screening in this setting. However, these data are based on standard MoCA diagnostic threshold and may not be suited for an acute stroke population.

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.

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)0.021
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.021
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.309 · 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