MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980876459 · doi:10.1002/acr.24096

Validity Evidence for the Use of Automated Neuropsychologic Assessment Metrics As a Screening Tool for Cognitive Impairment in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

2019· article· en· W2980876459 on OpenAlexaff
Oshrat E Tayer-Shifman, Robin Green, Dorcas Beaton, Lesley Ruttan, Joan Wither, Maria Carmela Tartaglia, Mahta Kakvan, Sabrina Lombardi, Nicole D. Anderson, Jiandong Su, Dennisse Bonilla, Moe Zandy, May Y. Choi, Marvin J. Fritzler, Zahi Touma

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis Care & Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryToronto Western HospitalInstitute for Work & HealthUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkToronto Rehabilitation Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuropsychological assessmentReceiver operating characteristicCognitionNeuropsychologyLogistic regressionPsychologyDiscriminative modelCognitive impairmentMedicinePhysical therapyInternal medicineAudiologyPsychiatryMachine learningComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Screening for cognitive impairment in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) conventionally relies on the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) neuropsychologic battery (NB), which is not universally available. To develop a more accessible screening approach, we assessed validity of the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics (ANAM). Using the ACR NB as the gold standard for cognitive impairment classification, the objectives were 1) to measure overall discriminative validity of the ANAM for cognitive impairment versus no cognitive impairment, 2) to identify ANAM subtests and scores that best differentiate patients with cognitive impairment from those with no cognitive impairment, and 3) to derive ANAM composite indices and cutoffs. METHODS: A total of 211 consecutive adult patients, female and male, with SLE were administered the ANAM and ACR NB. 1) For overall discriminative validity of the ANAM, we compared patients with cognitive impairment versus those with no cognitive impairment on 4 scores. 2) Six ANAM models using different scores were developed, and the most discriminatory subtests were selected using logistic regression analyses. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated to establish ANAM validity against the ACR NB. 3) ANAM composite indices and cutoffs were derived for the best models, and sensitivities and specificities were calculated. RESULTS: Patients with no cognitive impairment performed better on most ANAM subtests, supporting ANAM's discriminative validity. Cognitive impairment could be accurately identified by selected ANAM subtests with top models, demonstrating excellent AUCs of 81% and 84%. Derived composite indices and cutoffs demonstrated sensitivity of 78-80% and specificity of 70%. CONCLUSION: This study provides support for ANAM's discriminative validity for cognitive impairment and utility for cognitive screening in adult SLE. Derived composite indices and cutoffs enhance clinical applicability.

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.152
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.152
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.260
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations36
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis Care & ResearchSame topicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchFrench-language works237,207