Comparative analysis of sensitivity and specificity of computer-aided cognitive test in screening mild cognitive impairment patients and test of reliability and validity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reliability and validity of the computer-aided cognitive test (CACT). METHODS: 219 Subjects of Tongji Hospital's Brain Health cohort (115 cases of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) patients and 104 cases of normal controls) were enrolled, of which 24 cases received a retest after 2 weeks. Finally, the reliability and validity of the scale were tested and analyzed. RESULTS: (1) Reliability: (a) the internal consistency reliability of the total score of the scale was 0.645; (b) the retest reliability correlation coefficient of the total score of the scale was 0.900; (c) the Guttman Split-Half coefficient was 0.631; (2) Validity: (a) construct validity analysis showed that the correlation coefficient between each section score was between 0.036 and 0.408, and the correlation coefficient between each section score and the total score was between 0.468 and 0.781; (b) criterion validity analysis showed that the correlation coefficient between the total score of CACT and that of the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) was 0.733, and the coefficient between the total score of CACT and that of the basic version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was 0.763; (c) the area under the ROC curve of the CACT to distinguish between MCI patients and controls was 0.920, with an optimal diagnostic threshold of 20, a sensitivity of 88.5%, and a specificity of 80.9%. CONCLUSION: The CACT is little influenced by education level. It has good reliability and validity, which can be used for early clinical screening of cognitive dysfunction.
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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".