AB094. Development and validation of a questionnaire for locating Charles Bonnet syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study is to develop a screening questionnaire for the Charles Bonnet syndrome (CBS) that is valid, particularly in terms of specificity and sensitivity, and that allows to examine certain dimensions of these hallucinatory manifestations, to better assess the needs of people who live with the CBS. Methods: Interviews with clients of the Institut Nazareth et Louis-Braille who experienced visual hallucinations, supported by scientific literature and expert experience, guided the development of the questionnaire. Its content was first validated by six experts who assessed the questions developed, organized in seven subscales: (I) unusual perceptions; (II) contact with reality; (III) discriminatory screening; (IV) adaptation strategies; (V) psychological impact; (VI) description of the context of occurrence and (VII) characteristics. In a second step, a clinical study involving 76 people with visual impairment made it possible to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the instrument according to a criterion validity methodology, namely the clinical impression of a psychologist and/or an optometrist specialized in visual impairment, based on specific examinations and clinical tests. Subjects who appeared to have a CBS following the scouting done by subscale 1 (Unusual Perceptions) completed the rest of the questionnaire. Results: (I) The analyzes revealed a sensitivity of 1.00 and a specificity that varies from of 0.42 to 0.77 for the identification of CBS with the “Unusual Perceptions” subscale; (II) the administration of the questionnaire to the 76 study participants revealed that the wording of some questions needs to be improved; (III) the responses to the other 6 subscales of the questionnaire given by the 21 participants with SCB, show among others that most have simple rather than complex hallucinations and that these occur daily for 50% of them. Hallucinations do not negatively affect their mood, although they are experienced as disturbing by half of the participants with CBS. Only 11 participants with CBS have already talked about their hallucinations to a relative or a health professional, and only 5 have heard about CBS before. Conclusions: The CBS screening questionnaire has an excellent sensitivity, and an acceptable specificity. The CBS “Unusual Perceptions” subscale should include additional items. Further studies are needed for this purpose. In addition, the rest of the questionnaire reveals clinically important information about various aspects of these individuals’ hallucinations, such as the fact that many are disturbed by their hallucinations and have never heard of CBS. This questionnaire will help to better assess their needs and better plan interventions.
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 | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
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".