MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998320487 · doi:10.1111/jgs.16300

Validity of Cognitive Assessment Tools for Older Adult Hispanics: A Systematic Review

2019· review· en· W2998320487 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sandra Arévalo, Jennifer Kreß, Francisca S. Rodriguez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsMedicineDementiaGerontologyCognitive testCognitionVerbal fluency testPopulationMontreal Cognitive AssessmentEthnic groupClinical psychologyCognitive declineNeuropsychologyCognitive impairmentPsychiatryDiseaseEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: A higher prevalence and incidence of dementia is found in Hispanic/Latino older adults. Therefore, valid instruments are necessary to assess cognitive functioning in this population group. Our aim was to review existing articles that have examined and reported on the validity of cognitive assessment tools in Hispanic/Latino population groups in the United States. DESIGN: Systematic literature review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis. MEASUREMENTS: We systematically searched in the PubMed and Web of Science databases and assessed the quality of the search results using the Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. We included evidence from within the United States as well as from Spanish-speaking countries of origin (Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean). RESULTS: The literature search revealed 27 studies with adequate quality that investigated 13 instruments. The Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) was the most frequently investigated instrument in Hispanic/Latino groups in the United States with high sensitivity for dementia but also with significant differences for ethnicity and education. The Addenbrooke Cognitive Examination-Revised, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, 10/66 short diagnostic schedule, clock-drawing test, Phototest, Eurotest, and Executive Battery 25 had good diagnostic performance in Spanish-speaking countries. The naming test and verbal fluency tests have a higher risk of misclassifying US Hispanics/Latinos who have dementia. CONCLUSION: Evidence on validity suggests that the MMSE may be an appropriate cognitive assessment tool for Hispanics. More research is needed to confirm the validity of cognitive tools to assess Hispanic/Latino groups for Alzheimer's disease and other related dementias in the United States to reduce current trends of culturally biased under- or overdiagnosis of cognitive impairments. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:882-888, 2020.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.009
Bibliometrics0.0090.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations23
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics SocietySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207