Validation of an informant‐based cognitive screening tool for Parkinson disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to establish the psychometric properties of the AD8 Dementia Screening Interview in patients with Parkinson disease (PD) with or without cognitive impairment using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Tool (MoCA) for comparison. METHODS: The AD8 was translated into Malay for Malay-speaking participants. A correlation analysis and a receiver operator characteristic curve were generated to establish the psychometric properties of the AD8 in relation to the MoCA. RESULTS: One hundred fifty patients and their caretakers completed the AD8 and MoCA. Using a cutoff score of 1/8, the AD8 had 81% sensitivity and 59% specificity for the detection of cognitive impairment in PD. With a cutoff score of 2/8, the AD8 had 83% specificity and 64% sensitivity. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve was 80%, indicating good-to-excellent discriminative ability. DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that the AD8 can reliably differentiate between cognitively impaired and cognitively normal patients with PD and is a useful caregiver screening tool for PD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".