MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2570315135 · doi:10.3233/jad-160979

The Mild Behavioral Impairment Checklist (MBI-C): A Rating Scale for Neuropsychiatric Symptoms in Pre-Dementia Populations

2017· article· en· W2570315135 on OpenAlexafffund
Zahinoor Ismail, Luis Agüera-Ortíz, Henry Brodaty, Alicja Cieślak, Jeffrey L. Cummings, Corinne E. Fischer, Serge Gauthier, Yonas E. Geda, Nathan Herrmann, Jamila Kanji, Krista L. Lanctôt, David S. Miller, Moyra E. Mortby, Chiadi U. Onyike, Paul B. Rosenberg, Eric E. Smith, Gwenn S. Smith, David L. Sultzer, Constantine G. Lyketsos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Alzheimer s Disease · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of CalgaryDouglas Mental Health University InstituteUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institute on AgingCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsChecklistDementiaRating scaleClinical Dementia RatingPsychologyPsychiatryClinical psychologyScale (ratio)MedicineCognitive impairmentCognitionDevelopmental psychologyDiseaseInternal medicineCognitive psychologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mild behavioral impairment (MBI) is a construct that describes the emergence at ≥50 years of age of sustained and impactful neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS), as a precursor to cognitive decline and dementia. MBI describes NPS of any severity, which are not captured by traditional psychiatric nosology, persist for at least 6 months, and occur in advance of or in concert with mild cognitive impairment. While the detection and description of MBI has been operationalized in the International Society to Advance Alzheimer's Research and Treatment - Alzheimer's Association (ISTAART-AA) research diagnostic criteria, there is no instrument that accurately reflects MBI as described. OBJECTIVE: To develop an instrument based on ISTAART-AA MBI criteria. METHODS: Eighteen subject matter experts participated in development using a modified Delphi process. An iterative process ensured items reflected the five MBI domains of 1) decreased motivation; 2) emotional dysregulation; 3) impulse dyscontrol; 4) social inappropriateness; and 5) abnormal perception or thought content. Instrument language was developed a priori to pertain to non-demented functionally independent older adults. RESULTS: We present the Mild Behavioral Impairment Checklist (MBI-C), a 34-item instrument, which can easily be completed by a patient, close informant, or clinician. CONCLUSION: The MBI-C provides the first measure specifically developed to assess the MBI construct as explicitly described in the criteria. Its utility lies in MBI case detection, and monitoring the emergence of MBI symptoms and domains over time. Studies are required to determine the prognostic value of MBI for dementia development, and for predicting different dementia subtypes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations551
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Alzheimer s DiseaseSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207