MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238674297 · doi:10.1002/art.38449

A33: Cognitive Performance Scores for the Pediatric Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics in Childhood‐Onset Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

2014· article· en· W4238674297 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia Vega‐Fernandez, Shana Vanderburgh, Natasha M. Ruth, Deborah M. Levy, Frank Zelko, Eyal Muscal, Marisa S. Klein‐Gitelman, Adam M. Huber, Kasha Wiley, Erin C. Thomas, Lori B. Tucker, Tresa Roebuck‐Spencer, Jun Ying, Hermine Brunner

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis & Rheumatology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuropsychologyMedicineCognitionNeuropsychological assessmentNeuropsychological testingPediatricsClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Purpose: Children with SLE (cSLE) can experience neuropsychiatric SLE (NPSLE), commonly manifesting as neurocognitive dysfunction which can interfere with normal development. Formal neurocognitive testing (FNCT) is the most accepted test for diagnosing neurocognitive deficits (NCD). Access to it is limited and costly, and it is time‐consuming. The Pediatric Automated Neurophysiological Assessments Metrics (PedANAM) is a computerized battery of 10 subtests measuring various aspects of cognitive ability. Concurrent validity of PedANAM test scores with FNCT has been demonstrated. However, the PedANAM generates several measures of accuracy (% of correct responses), processing speed and efficiency, and it is unclear how they can be used in a clinical setting. The usefulness of the PedANAM as a screen for NCD would be enhanced by the development of a PedANAM Cognitive Performance Score (PedANAM‐CPS) to represent aspects of PedANAM task performance that are sensitive to NCD in cSLE. The purpose of this study was to develop a PedANAM‐CPS for use in cSLE, using statistical methods. Methods: cSLE patients (pts) and age plus sex‐matched healthy controls enrolled in a study of cognitive functioning and neuroimaging were studied. At the time of enrollment (visit 1—V1) and 18 months later (visit 2—V2), subjects completed the PedANAM and FNCT. Three candidate PedANAM‐CPS measurement approaches were explored via 3 statistical methods: 1) Simple mean—of all subtest accuracy scores; 2) Logit score—via a logistic regression model; 3) PCA score—using a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) method. The latter 2 methods assigned in a different way a statistical weight to each subtest accuracy score. Fixed effect models were used to compare performance scores between groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the accuracy of the CPS as predictors of NCD as determined by FNCT. Results: 77 children (female = 68%) were evaluated at V1; Nine cSLE pts with NCD, 31 with cSLE and no NCD, and 37 control with no NCD as per FNCT. At V1, age (values are mean ± standard deviation) of children was 13.6 ± 2.4 years. For cSLE pts, disease activity (SLEDAI) was 4.9 ± 4.4, and 77.5% were on oral prednisone (19.8 ± 17.4 mg). Table summarizes the PedANAM‐CPS for all methods at V1. The Logit score best discriminated the groups, especially contrasting the NCD group against the other groups. The Logit and PCA scores showed g 82% area under the ROC curve during the validation stage using V2 data. Summary of PedANAM Cognitive Performance Score (PedANAMCPS) Visit Score Mean ± SD p‐value (1) Control (2) cSLE No NCD (3) cSLE w. NCD (1) vs. 2) (1) vs. (3) (1) vs. (3) 1 Simple mean 88.79 ± 0.97 88.91 ± 1.06 85.18 ± 1.96 0.931 0.103 0.098 Logit score −0.04 ± 0.13 −0.04 ± 0.15 0.84 ± 0.27 0.992 0.005 0.006 PCA score 438.80 ± 4.22 441.30 ± 4.61 421.69 ± 8.55 0.690 0.077 0.057 Conclusion: Candidate PedANAM‐CPS derived from the Logit and PCA scores seem to perform better than an index based on the simple means at discriminating cSLE pts with NCD from cSLE and control children with normal cognition. Further analysis in a larger sample is needed to better determine accuracy performance scores with clinical relevance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.291 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis & RheumatologySame topicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchFrench-language works237,207