Cognitive screening with functional assessment improves diagnostic accuracy and attenuates bias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Cognitive screening measures often lack sensitivity and are hampered by inequities across ethnoracial groups. A multitrait multimethod (MTMM) classification may attenuate these shortcomings. Methods A sample of 7227 participants across the diagnostic spectrum were selected from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center cohort. Random forest ensemble methods were used to predict diagnosis across the sample and within Black American ( n = 1025) and non‐Hispanic White groups ( n = 5263) based on: (1) a demographically corrected Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), (2) MoCA and Functional Assessment Questionnaire (FAQ), (3) MoCA and FAQ with demographic correction. Results The MTMM approach with demographic correction had the highest diagnostic accuracy for the cognitively unimpaired (area under curve [AUC] [95% confidence interval (CI)]): 0.906 [0.892, 0.920]) and mild cognitive impairment (AUC: 0.835 [0.810, 0.860]) groups and reduced racial disparities. Discussion With further validation, the MTMM approach combining cognitive screening and functional status assessment may serve to improve diagnostic accuracy and extend opportunities for early intervention with greater equity.
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 | 0.048 | 0.149 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".