MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3111738418 · doi:10.1002/alz.040648

Differentiating among stages of cognitive impairment: Comparisons of versions two and three of the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC) Uniform Data Set (UDS) neuropsychological test battery

2020· article· en· W3111738418 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hiroko H. Dodge, Felicia C. Goldstein, Nicky I Wakim, Tamar Gefen, Merilee Teylan, Walter A. Kukull, Lisa L. Barnes, Bruno Giordani, Timothy M. Hughes, Joel H. Kramer, David Loewenstein, Daniel Marson, Dan Mungas, Bonnie C. Sachs, David P. Salmon, Kyle Steenland, Monica W. Parker, Kathleen A. Welsh‐Bohmer, John C. Morris, Sandra Weıntraub

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsNeuropsychologyDementiaClinical Dementia RatingPsychologyNeuropsychological testReceiver operating characteristicCognitive impairmentCognitionAudiologyRepeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological StatusAlzheimer's diseaseSet (abstract data type)MedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryDiseaseInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background National Institute on Aging (NIA)‐funded Alzheimer’s Disease Centers in the United States have been using a standardized neuropsychological test battery as part of the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC) Uniform Data Set (UDS) since 2005. Version 3 (V3) of the UDS was implemented in 2015 and included several changes to its neuropsychological battery, replacing the previous version [Version 2 (V2)]. The current study compares the V3 and V2 neuropsychological batteries with respect to their ability to distinguish among categories of cognitive impairment captured by the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) global scores representing either no cognitive impairment (CDR=0), questionable or mild cognitive impairment (CDR=0.5) or mild stage of dementia (CDR=1.0). Method Data from the NACC UDS V2 and V3 neuropsychological batteries were examined. There were 16,935 unique subjects from V2 and 5022 unique subjects from V3 aged 60 years and older with CDR global score ≤ 1. To reduce the influence of practice effects, only data from their first assessment was used. To control for inequalities in sample sizes between V2 and V3, we identified an approximately equal number of subjects from V2 within each CDR group. Receiver Operating Characteristics Area under Curve (ROC‐AUC) in differentiating stages of cognitive impairment were compared and optimal cut‐points based on Youden’s J scores were calculated. Result ROC‐AUCs from all of the V3 neuropsychological tests were comparable in their ability to differentiate CDR global scores with the corresponding tests in V2, despite the fact that V3 participants included more subjects at earlier stage of CDR 0.5. UDS V3 composite scores yielded similar ROC‐AUCs to the best performing individual test within each domain, while the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) total score yielded higher ROC‐AUCs than any individual MoCA index scores. Racial differences in differentiating between CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 were also found. Conclusion A nonproprietary suite of neuropsychological tests in UDS V3 provided similar discriminative ability to tests in UDS V2 to distinguish categories of cognitive impairment. Optimal cut‐points calculated in this study will be useful for clinical diagnosis.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→