MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205719204 · doi:10.1002/alz.057766

Development and assessment of a brief screening tool for psychosis in dementia

2021· article· en· W4205719204 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey L. Cummings, Alireza Atri, Zahinoor Ismail, Brad C. Dickerson, Clive Ballard, George T. Grossberg, Bradley McEvoy, Erin P. Foff

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMental Health and Psychiatry
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaPsychosisCohen's kappaClinical Dementia RatingPsychiatryRating scaleMedicineStatisticPsychologyClinical psychologyInternal medicineDiseaseDevelopmental psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Hallucinations and delusions associated with dementia‐related psychosis (DRP) can occur in persons with dementia—however, quickly screening for these symptoms in busy clinical settings can be challenging. We developed the DRP3 Screen, a novel tool to screen for psychosis in clinical settings; performed an Alignment Exercise to determine association of the DRP3 Screen with established psychosis/DRP reference assessments; and retrospectively assessed the ability of the DRP3 Screen to detect patients with DRP enrolled in a clinical trial (HARMONY, NCT03325556). Methods The DRP3 Screen comprises 3 yes/no questions and was developed by Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. in collaboration with an international team of six subject matter experts (SMEs). Through facilitated discussions, the panel developed questions addressing key aspects of psychosis in dementia. SMEs independently rated level of alignment (Table) of the questions with current reference assessments (SAPS‐H+D, NPI‐Q, IPA Criteria) to determine if the symptoms itemized in those assessments would be captured by ≥1 DRP3 Screen question. Criteria for association with a reference assessment item was mean rating ≥2.0 for at least one DRP3 Screen question (95% CI, lower limit ≥1.3). Inter‐rater reliability of the Alignment Exercise for individual reference assessments was assessed using Fleiss’ kappa statistic. For retrospective application of the DRP3 Screen to HARMONY, patients were considered likely to have been identified by the DRP3 Screen if they were positive (score ≥2) on ≥1 SAPS‐H+D items that were positively associated with the DRP3 Screen. Results All items across 3 reference assessments (except SAPS‐H+D D6, somatic delusions) were associated with the DRP3 Screen. Mean level of alignment segregated to none/some (0.3‐1.8) and most/all (2.3‐3.0) with significant inter‐rater agreement of the DRP3 Screen with the SAPS‐H+D, NPI‐Q and IPA Criteria, (kappa values: 0.37, 0.26, and 0.45, respectively; p<.0001). Retrospective application of the DRP3 Screen to HARMONY identified all trial enrollees. Conclusions The novel DRP3 Screen is a brief tool designed to assess the presence of hallucinations and delusions in persons with dementia. Potential for its clinical application has been established through association with current reference assessments, with significant agreement among raters; and through successful retrospective application to an existing trial population.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.326
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; 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicMental Health and PsychiatryFrench-language works237,207