Validation of the automated neuropsychological assessment metrics for assessing cognitive impairment in systemic lupus erythematosus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We previously demonstrated the utility of the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics (ANAM) for screening cognitive impairment (CI) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and developed composite indices for interpreting ANAM results. Our objectives here were to provide further support for the ANAM's concurrent criterion validity against the American College of Rheumatology neuropsychological battery (ACR-NB), identify the most discriminatory subtests and scores of the ANAM for predicting CI, and provide a new approach to interpret ANAM results using Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis. METHODS: 300 adult SLE patients completed an adapted ACR-NB and ANAM on the same day. As per objectives, six models were built using combinations of ANAM subtests and scores and submitted to CART analysis. Area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to evaluate the ANAM's criterion validity compared to the adapted ACR-NB; the most discriminatory ANAM subtests and scores in each model were selected, and performance of models with the highest AUCs were compared to our previous composite indices; decision trees were generated for models with the highest AUCs. RESULTS: Two models had excellent AUCs of 86 and 89%. Eight most discriminatory ANAM subtests and scores were identified. Both models demonstrated higher AUCs against our previous composite indices. An adapted decision tree was created to simplify the interpretation of ANAM results. CONCLUSION: We provide further validity evidence for the ANAM as a valid CI screening tool in SLE. The decision tree improves interpretation of ANAM results, enhancing clinical utility.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".