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 OpenAlexaboutno aff
Papan Thaipisuttikul, Daochompu Nakawiro, Sanchai Kuladee, Pitchayawadee Chittaropas, Chakrit Sukying

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.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.017
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

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychogeriatricsSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207