MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789565902 · doi:10.3233/jad-170947

Neuropsychiatric and Cognitive Subtypes among Community-Dwelling Older Persons and the Association with DSM-5 Mild Neurocognitive Disorder: Latent Class Analysis

2018· article· en· W2789565902 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tau Ming Liew, Junhong Yu, Rathi Mahendran, Tze Pin Ng, Ee Heok Kua, Lei Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Alzheimer s Disease · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurocognitiveLatent class modelAssociation (psychology)CognitionPsychologyPsychiatryClinical psychologyDSM-5DementiaMedicineDiseasePsychotherapistInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) have been shown to increase the risk of neurocognitive disorders (NCD), leading to the recently-published criteria of mild behavioral impairment (MBI) to identify pre-dementia using NPS alone. However, MBI drew concerns about over-diagnosing subclinical psychiatric disorders. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that the specificity of NPS in predicting NCD may be improved by considering NPS together with various domains of cognitive deficits. We tested this hypothesis by identifying subtypes based on the combination of NPS and cognitive deficits among community-dwelling older persons, and evaluating how the identified subtypes were associated with mild NCD. METHODS: Our participants were from a community-based cohort study. They completed assessments such as Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), Geriatric Anxiety Inventory (GAI), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Those with possible cognitive impairment underwent further evaluations for mild NCD. Latent class analysis was conducted using GDS, GAI, and MoCA domains. Logistic regression was performed to investigate the association between the latent-classes and mild NCD. RESULTS: We included 825 participants, and identified four distinct subtypes: Subtype 1 (no NPS or cognitive deficits), Subtype 2 (NPS alone), Subtype 3 (cognitive deficits alone), and Subtype 4 (both NPS and cognitive deficits). Subtype 1 and 2 had low risk of prevalent mild NCD (OR 0.92- 1.00), while Subtype 3 conferred a moderate risk (OR 4.47- 4.85) and Subtype 4 had the highest risk (OR 7.95- 8.63). CONCLUSION: We demonstrated the benefits of combining NPS and cognitive deficits to predict those at highest risk of prevalent mild NCD. Our findings highlighted the relevance of subclinical psychiatric symptoms in predicting NCD, and indirectly supported the need for longer durations of NPS to improve its specificity.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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