MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120314527 · doi:10.7860/jcdr/2020/44545.13994

Comparative Analysis of Alzheimer Questionnaire and Montreal Cognitive Assessment Tool for Cognitive Impairment Screening among the Elderly Population

2020· article· en· W3120314527 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aparajita Dasgupta, Aloke Biswas, Bobby Paul, Soumit Roy, Debraj Sarkar, Pritam Ghosh, Sauryadripta Ghose, Akanksha Yadav

Bibliographic record

VenueJOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Systems and Public Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitive impairmentMedicineGold standard (test)KappaPopulationReceiver operating characteristicCognitionDementiaCohen's kappaGerontologyInternal medicinePsychiatryDiseaseEnvironmental healthStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Alzheimer Questionnaire (AQ) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) are tools for assessment of cognitive impairment. MoCA is a common tool for screening of cognitive impairment but it requires trained personnel. AQ questionnaire is informant-based, simple and less time consuming with or without the involvement of trained personnel. Aim: To estimate the prevalence of cognitive impairment and to find out the accuracy of AQ compared to MoCA in Cognitive Impairment screening among elderly population in an urban area of West Bengal. Materials and Methods: The Prospective cross-sectional study was conducted in urban field practice area of All India Institute of Hygiene and Public Health, Kolkata among 140 randomly selected elderly population from June to September 2019. Accuracy of AQ with MoCA tool as gold standard in screening cognitive impairment was analysed by Cohen’s Kappa, Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) Curve, Spearman rho Coefficient along with sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratio was obtained. Results: Prevalence of cognitive impairment using MoCA and AQ was 40% (95% CI=31.8-48.6) and 36.4% (95% CI=28.5-45.0), respectively. AQ and MoCA showed good agreement (Cohen’s kappa, κ=0.834; 95% CI=0.739-0.928). The AQ and MoCA showed a strong negative correlation (spearman’s Rho=-0.709; 95%CI=0.764-0.884, p-value <0.001). Considering MoCA as gold standard, AQ showed sensitivity of 85.7% (95% CI=74.2-92.6), specificity of 96.4% (95% CI=89.9-98.7) for cognitive impairment screening and the Positive predictive value of this tool was 94.1% (95% CI=84.0-97.9%). The Youden index of 0.821 showed highest sum of sensitivity and specificity of AQ tool at 4.5 score to anticipate cognitive impairment. Conclusion: AQ is equally effective as MoCA to screen cognitive impairment among elderly at the community level. AQ can be used even by grass root level health workers without involvement of trained personnel. So, community level screening of elderly for cognitive dysfunction can be made even in resource poor settings. Early identification and referral of elderly with cognitive dysfunction will help them in better living.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.289
GPT teacher head0.569
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCHSame topicHealthcare Systems and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207