MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2765180326 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2017.06.1101

[P2–445]: DÉPISTAGE COGNITIF DE QUÉBÉC (DCQ): VALIDATION AND NORMATIVE DATA FOR A NOVEL COGNITIVE SCREENING TOOL FOR ATYPICAL DEMENTIAS

2017· article· en· W2765180326 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Bergeron, Leila Sellami, Louis Verret, Marie‐Pierre Fortin, Michèle Houde, Carol Hudon, Stéphane Poulin, Martin Roy, Rémi W. Bouchard, Robert Laforce

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaIntraclass correlationNormativeMontreal Cognitive AssessmentInter-rater reliabilityMedicineCognitionConcordanceBoston Naming TestClinical psychologyPsychologyPsychiatryAudiologyNeuropsychologyPsychometricsCognitive impairmentDevelopmental psychologyInternal medicineRating scale

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Dépistage Cognitif de Québec (DCQ) was developed by expert Behavioural Neurologists and Clinical Neuropsychologists based on updated criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD), primary progressive aphasia (PPA) and behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (FTD). It targets five cognitive domains: Memory, Visuospatial, Executive, Language and Behaviour. This study aimed to provide normative data for the DCQ and measure its psychometric properties. We recruited 400 healthy French-speaking Canadians aged between 50 and 90 years old. Subjects were excluded if they had cognitive complaints, a personal history of neurological or psychiatric disorder, untreated metabolic condition, disabling visual and hearing disorders or illiteracy. All participants completed both the DCQ (25–30 minutes) and the MoCA (10–15 minutes) in a random order, on the same day. Normative data were based on participants who scored ≥ 26 on the MoCA (n=250). A random sample of 45 participants was retested within 1–3 months of initial administration to examine test–retest reliability. Fifty questionnaires picked at random among the 400 participants were scored again by two blinded and independents raters to assess interrater reliability. Mean DCQ total score (out of 100) was 89.17 (SD=7.36). Pearson's correlation coefficient showed a strong and significant correlation (r=.71, p<. 001) with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Internal consistency for the cognitive domains assessed by Cronbach's alpha was satisfactory (.74). Test-retest reliability was adequate (Pearson's coefficient =. 70, p<. 001) and interrater reliability, excellent (intraclass correlation=. 99, p<.001). Normative data shown in percentiles were stratified by age and education (See Table). This study suggests that the DCQ is a valid and reliable cognitive screening test. Application of the DCQ on populations with atypical dementias is underway to derive sensitivity and specificity values for various dementias.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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