MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4205292113 · doi:10.1002/alz.050950

Superiority of the Dépistage Cognitif de Québec (DCQ) over the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in differentiating dementia with Lewy bodies from Alzheimer's disease

2021· article· en· W4205292113 on OpenAlexaffabout
Élizabeth Poulin, Pamela Sarao, Marie‐Frédérique D'Amours, Robert Laforce

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHôpital de l'Enfant-Jésus
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementia with Lewy bodiesMontreal Cognitive AssessmentNeurocognitiveMedicineMemory clinicDementiaCognitionAudiologyCognitive reserveBoston Naming TestDiseasePsychologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Recent criteria for dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) are available but early diagnosis remains a challenge since few cases display all core clinical features. Discriminating Alzheimer’s disease (AD) from DLB is also complex given the overlap in cognitive dysfunctions between the two conditions. We aimed to study their differential neurocognitive profile using the Dépistage Cognitif de Québec (DCQ), a newly developed screening tool for atypical dementias. Moreover, we explored whether the DCQ was superior to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in identifying DLB. Methods We compared the performance of 15 patients with DLB to 72 patients with the amnestic variant of AD on the five indexes of the DCQ (Memory, Visuospatial, Executive, Language and Behavioral) as well as the MoCA test, administered in random order. Participants were recruited prospectively in a tertiary memory clinic and diagnosed according to current clinical criteria for AD and DLB. Results There were no significant differences between the groups in age (AD: 72.97; DCL: 72.13) or level of education (AD: 12.88; DCL: 12.40). Mean Total MoCA score was similar across conditions (19.01 vs 20.00, p = .54) whereas the Total DCQ score revealed a significant difference between AD and DLB (66.39 vs 72.60, p < .05) (Fig. 2). Further analyses showed superior Area Under the Curve for the DCQ (69.23%; moderately strong) over the MoCA (55.26%; weak) in discriminating DCL from AD (Fig. 1). Bivariate analyses on the DCQ and MOCA indexes were performed using Wilcoxon‐Mann‐Whitney tests. When compared to AD, DLB participants performed worse on the Visuospatial Index (5.04 vs 4.10, p < .05) (Fig. 4), particularly the visuospatial construction task (1.33 vs 0.67 p < .05) while AD participants were significantly more affected on the Memory Index (recall and recognition) (16.13 vs 24.73, p < .0001) (Fig. 3). The remaining DCQ indexes (Executive, Language and Behavioral) were similar between groups. Conclusions Our data suggests that the DCQ may be a superior tool than the MoCA in distinguishing AD from DLB. The DCQ allowed better characterization of the neurocognitive profile between AD and DLB, where DLB preferentially affects visuospatial skills while AD targets memory abilities.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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