MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289866350 · doi:10.1111/psyg.12884

Development and validation of the Ascertain Dementia 8 (<scp>AD8</scp>) Thai version

2022· article· en· W4289866350 on OpenAlex
Papan Thaipisuttikul, Daochompu Nakawiro, Sanchai Kuladee, Pitchayawadee Chittaropas, Chakrit Sukying

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychogeriatrics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaClinical Dementia RatingMontreal Cognitive AssessmentNeuropsychologyCognitionMedicineNeurocognitiveTest (biology)Memory clinicClinical psychologyDiseasePsychologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Ascertain Dementia 8 (AD8) is a brief informant-based questionnaire which reliably distinguishes patients with neurocognitive disorder (NCD) and normal cognition. Our objective was to translate the AD8 into Thai and test its validity as a potentially useful measure to detect patients with the mild stage of major NCD due to Alzheimer disease (major NCD-AD). METHODS: Evaluations of 144 informant-patient dyads were made. Participants were patients who attended the memory clinic at Ramathibodi Hospital and non-patient volunteers. The AD8-Thai version was administered separately from doctor's interviews and neuropsychological assessments. Diagnostic workups included a complete medical history, physical and neurological examinations, neuropsychological testing, the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SOB), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), blood tests and brain imaging, preferably with magnetic resonance imaging. All researchers were blinded to the AD8 results. RESULTS: An AD8 score ≥3 had a sensitivity of 95.5%, a specificity of 89.5%, a positive predictive value of 84%, and a negative predictive value of 97.1% for screening major NCD-AD and those with normal cognition. A subgroup analysis with participants aged ≥65 years and with ≥12 years of education revealed comparable ability to the whole group. AD8 scores had a moderate negative relationship with MoCA scores (r = -0.470) and a strong positive relationship with CDR-SOB scores (r = 0.547). The performance of AD8 scores in differentiating mild NCD from normal cognition was not as good as for major NCD-AD. CONCLUSIONS: AD8-Thai version is an acceptable screening tool for major NCD-AD. For patients aged 65 years or older, with at least 12 years of education, and with cognitive complaints in memory clinic, an AD8-Thai score of 3 or more would be sufficient to work on major NCD diagnosis. The performance of the AD8-Thai in mild NCD needs further investigation.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.269 · 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