Construct validity and reliability of the Test Your Memory Chinese version in older neurology outpatient attendees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early distinguishing the cognitive impairment from healthy population is crucial to delay the progression of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer disease (AD). Test Your Memory (TYM) has been proved to be a valid and reliable screening instrument for AD and MCI. This study aimed to develop a culturally appropriate and functional Standard Mandarin Chinese translation of the TYM, and to evaluate its reliability and validity in detecting AD and MCI in Chinese. 182 subjects with AD/MCI and 55 healthy controls were recruited to participate in this study, and everyone undergo the test of Standard Mandarin Chinese version of the TYM (TYM-CN), Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA-BJ), and Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) Scale. Concurrently, all the subjects with AD/MCI received the general physical and neurologic examinations, extensive laboratory tests, and brain computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Of which, 90 subjects were asked to complete the re-test of TYM-CN at 3 weeks after the initial visit. Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the test–retest reliability and the internal consistency. The validity, sensitivity and specificity were also analyzed. One-way analysis of variance, χ 2 test, correlation analysis, and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis were employed, as needed. The total scores of TYM-CN was 43.89 ± 3.44, 40.88 ± 4.38, and 29.12 ± 7.44 (p < 0.01) for healthy controls group, MCI group, and AD group, respectively. The ICC for 11 items of TYM-CN ranged from 0.863 (copying) to 0.994 (anterograde), and that of the total scale was 0.993, suggesting an excellent reliability. Furthermore, the significant correlation was also found between TYM-CN and MMSE (r = 0.76), MoCA-BJ (r = 0.74), and CDR scores (r = 0.76), indicating a good validity. A TYM-CN scores ≤ 39.5 had 95% sensitivity and 95% specificity in differentiating AD from healthy controls, and that ≤ 43.5 had 75% sensitivity and 91% specificity in distinguishing MCI from healthy controls, respectively. The reliability and validity of the TYM-CN are statistically acceptable for the evaluation of cognitive impairment, which may contribute to neuropsychological tests for the diagnosis of AD and MCI from healthy controls in China.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".