MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765657382 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.117.017519

Validation of the Telephone Interview of Cognitive Status and Telephone Montreal Cognitive Assessment Against Detailed Cognitive Testing and Clinical Diagnosis of Mild Cognitive Impairment After Stroke

2017· article· en· W2765657382 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vera Zietemann, Anna Kopczak, Claudia Müller, Frank A. Wollenweber, Martin Dichgans

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentDementiaTelephone interviewMedicineClinical Dementia RatingNeuropsychologyReceiver operating characteristicTicsCognitionNeuropsychological assessmentStroke (engine)Cognitive impairmentPhysical therapyGerontologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Assessment of cognitive status poststroke is recommended by guidelines but follow-up can often not be done in person. The Telephone Interview of Cognitive Status (TICS) and the Telephone Montreal Cognitive Assessment (T-MoCA) are considered useful screening instruments. Yet, evidence to define optimal cut-offs for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) after stroke is limited. METHODS: We studied 105 patients enrolled in the prospective DEDEMAS study (Determinants of Dementia After Stroke; NCT01334749). Follow-up visits at 6, 12, 36, and 60 months included comprehensive neuropsychological testing and the Clinical Dementia Rating scale, both of which served as reference standards. The original TICS and T-MoCA were obtained in 2 separate telephone interviews each separated from the personal visits by 1 week (1 before and 1 after the visit) with the order of interviews (TICS versus T-MoCA) alternating between subjects. Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curves was determined. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients completed both the face-to-face visits and the 2 interviews. Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curves ranged between 0.76 and 0.83 for TICS and between 0.73 and 0.94 for T-MoCA depending on MCI definition. For multidomain MCI defined by multiple-tests definition derived from comprehensive neuropsychological testing optimal sensitivities and specificities were achieved at cut-offs <36 (TICS) and <18 (T-MoCA). Validity was lower using single-test definition, and cut-offs were higher compared with multiple-test definitions. Using Clinical Dementia Rating as the reference, optimal cut-offs for MCI were <36 (TICS) and approximately 19 (T-MoCA). CONCLUSIONS: Both the TICS and T-MoCA are valid screening tools poststroke, particularly for multidomain MCI using multiple-test definition.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.372
Teacher spread0.329 · 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
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

Citations123
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207