MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2538588908 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2016.06.1559

P2‐299: Brief Neuropsychological Screening Tests for the Detection of Alzheimer's Disease in an Early Phase: A Systematic Review

2016· review· en· W2538588908 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ellen De Roeck, Peter Paul De Deyn, Sebastiaan Engelborghs, Eva Dierckx

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuropsychologyTest (biology)CognitionPsychologyNeuropsychological assessmentCognitive testNeuropsychological testPsychometricsReliability (semiconductor)Psychometric testsDiseaseCognitive impairmentClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Short neuropsychological screening tests form an important and often first step in the process of identifying individuals suffering from cognitive decline. Although plentiful in number, it is still unclear which screening tests are intended to be used for the early detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and the quality of the tests are often unclear. The objective of this study was therefore (1) to give an overview of the available short screening tests for the early detection of AD and (2) to review the psychometric properties of these tests. First, a systematic search of titles and/or abstracts of PubMed and Web of Science was conducted. All full-text articles about cognitive screening instruments for the early detection of AD written in English or Dutch were included, resulting in the identification of 30 pen-and-paper tests and 15 computer tests. In a second step the psychometric quality of these instruments was evaluated. Therefore, a search on each individual test was done in the same databases. Thereafter, the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve values for the detection of mild cognitive impairment and AD were listed together with the inter-rater and test-retest reliability of each individual test. Out of 1033 papers, 89 were selected that clearly discussed the psychometric properties of the tests. 75 papers discussed pen-and-paper tests of which 67 were validated in a memory clinic setting. Based on the amount of studies (30 papers) and the sensitivity (84%) and specificity (74%) values, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment is a promising screening test for memory clinic testing as well as for population screening. For computer tests, validation studies were only available for 6 out of 15 tests. There are a large number of available screening tests for AD. However, most tests are only validated in a memory clinic setting and research focusing on the psychometric properties of the instruments is limited. Especially computer tests need further research.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.009
Bibliometrics0.0170.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→