Communicating Risk: Developing an “Efficiency Index” for Dementia Screening Tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diagnostic and screening tests may have risks such as misdiagnosis, as well as the potential benefits of correct diagnosis. Effective communication of this risk to both clinicians and patients can be problematic. The purpose of this study was to develop a metric called the "efficiency index" (EI), defined as the ratio of test accuracy and inaccuracy, to evaluate screening tests for dementia. This measure was compared with a previously described "likelihood to be diagnosed or misdiagnosed" (LDM), also based on "numbers needed" metrics. Datasets from prospective pragmatic test accuracy studies examining four brief cognitive screening instruments (Mini-Mental State Examination; Montreal Cognitive Assessment; Mini-Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination (MACE); and Free-Cog) were analysed to calculate values for EI and LDM, and to examine their variation with test cut-off for MACE and dementia prevalence. EI values were also calculated using a modification of McGee's heuristic for the simplification of likelihood ratios to estimate percentage change in diagnostic probability. The findings indicate that EI is easier to calculate than LDM and, unlike LDM, may be classified either qualitatively or quantitatively in a manner similar to likelihood ratios. EI shows the utility or inutility of diagnostic and screening tests, illustrating the inevitable trade-off between diagnosis and misdiagnosis. It may be a useful metric to communicate risk in a way that is easily intelligible for both clinicians and patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.180 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".