MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2774586156 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.160792

Validation and diagnostic accuracy of predictive curves for age-associated longitudinal cognitive decline in older adults

2017· article· en· W2774586156 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Patrick J. Bernier, Christian Gourdeau, Pierre‐Hugues Carmichael, Jean‐Pierre Beauchemin, René Verreault, Rémi W. Bouchard, Edeltraut Kröger, Robert Laforce

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCégep LimoilouCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecCentres Intégré Universitaires de Santé et de Services SociauxInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsDementiaCognitive declinePercentileCognitionConfidence intervalMedicineMini–Mental State ExaminationGerontologyCognitive impairmentPsychiatryStatisticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Mini-Mental State Examination continues to be used frequently to screen for cognitive impairment in older adults, but it remains unclear how to interpret changes in its score over time to distinguish age-associated cognitive decline from an early degenerative process. We aimed to generate cognitive charts for use in clinical practice for longitudinal evaluation of age-associated cognitive decline. METHODS: We used data from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging from 7569 participants aged 65 years or older who completed a Mini-Mental State Examination at baseline, and at 5 and 10 years later to develop a linear regression model for the Mini-Mental State Examination score as a function of age and education. Based on this model, we generated cognitive charts designed to optimize accuracy for distinguishing participants with dementia from healthy controls. We validated our model using a separate data set of 6501 participants from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center's Uniform Data Set. RESULTS: For baseline measurement, the cognitive charts had a sensitivity of 80% (95% confidence interval [CI] 75% to 84%) and a specificity of 89% (95% CI 88% to 90%) for distinguishing healthy controls from participants with dementia. Similar sensitivities and specificities were observed for a decline over time greater than 1 percentile zone from the first measurement. Results in the validation sample were comparable, albeit with lower sensitivities. Negative predictive value was 99%. INTERPRETATION: Our innovative model, which factors in age and education, showed validity and diagnostic accuracy for determining whether older patients show abnormal performance on serial Mini-Mental State Examination measurements. Similar to growth curves used in pediatrics, cognitive charts allow longitudinal cognitive evaluation and enable prompt initiation of investigation and treatment when appropriate.

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)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.198
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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.198
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→