MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205411638 · doi:10.1002/alz.050449

Statistical data harmonization for neuropsychological test battery conversion

2021· article· en· W4205411638 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Steven Wilkins‐Reeves, Yen‐Chi Chen, Kwun Chuen Gary Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParametric statisticsComputer scienceNeuropsychologyStatistical inferenceStatisticsInferenceStatistical hypothesis testingCognitionArtificial intelligenceMachine learningPsychologyMathematicsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background A current problem scientists and clinicians face when studying cognitive impairment is how to harmonize scores across neuropsychological tests evaluating the same cognitive domains in a longitudinal analysis. Prior point conversion methods typically do not allow quantification of uncertainty and may be based on strong distributional assumptions. Our framework was motivated by an interest in assessing the uncertainty when converting scores. Method We established new statistical methodology for converting C1 and C2 neuropsychological batteries of the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set collected by the NIA Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers Program. We adapted methodology from the measurement error and latent variable statistical modeling techniques and proposed an algorithm to give point and interval conversions. We developed parametric and non‐parametric models to achieve this task, allowing one to control for important traits such as age, education level and sex at birth. Additionally, we developed variational inference and functional Expectation Maximization algorithms to fit these models and implemented them in R. This method was compared to existing methodology using Z‐score conversions or quantile matching. Result We assessed our model by converting C1 scores (e.g. Mini‐Mental State Examination) to C2 scores (e.g. Montreal Cognitive Assessment). We trained our method on 18092 cognitively normal individuals with either a C1 or C2 score observed. The method was validated on a set 420 individuals with both scores observed using the Hellinger and Total Variation probability metrics to compare conversion distributions. Both methods outperformed prior methods in describing intrinsic variability (Table 1), which is the difference of scores from subsequent visits. Additionally, the non‐parametric model outperformed the others in matching the extrinsic variability, which is the difference of scores for individuals with multiple same day tests used to verify a model is capturing the conversion uncertainty (Table 1; Figures 1,2,3). Conclusion Our framework provides a statistically grounded approach to convert scores with uncertainty, a significant step towards understanding cognitive progression in settings where different neuropsychological batteries are used over time. This work establishes groundwork for future study including detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment when multiple testing batteries are used during an individual’s lifetime.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.312
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicHealth, Environment, Cognitive AgingFrench-language works237,207