MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309950614

Comparative diagnostic accuracy of ACE-III and MoCA for detecting mild cognitive impairment

2019· article· en· W4309950614 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wang BR, Zheng HF, Xu Chen, Yao Sun, Zhang YD, Shi JQ

Bibliographic record

VenueDove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive impairmentMontreal Cognitive AssessmentDiagnostic accuracyMedicineCognitionComputer scienceInternal medicinePsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bian-Rong Wang,1 Hui-Fen Zheng,1 Chang Xu,1 Yi Sun,1 Ying-Dong Zhang,2 Jian-Quan Shi2 1Department of Neurology, Geriatric Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 210024, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Neurology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 210006, People’s Republic of ChinaCorrespondence: Ying-Dong Zhang; Jian-Quan ShiDepartment of Neurology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, No. 68, Changle Road, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 210006, People’s Republic of ChinaTel +86 0 258 772 6218; +86 0 258 772 6224Email zhangyingdong@aliyun.com; myxiyi_0717@163.comObjective: The aim of this study was to validate the reliability of the Chinese version of Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination III (ACE-III) for detecting mild cognitive impairment. Furthermore, the present study compares the diagnostic accuracy of ACE-III with that of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).Methods: One hundred and twenty patients with MCI and 136 healthy controls were included in the study. All patients were evaluated by the Chinese version of ACE-III, MoCA and MMSE.Results: Subjects in the control group showed better performance in ACE-III total score and its subdomain scores than those in the MCI group. There was a significantly positive correlation between ACE-III total score and MoCA score. Meanwhile, there was also a significantly positive correlation between ACE-III total score and MMSE score. For ACE-III total score, a cut-off point of 85 yielded a sensitivity of 97.3% and a specificity of 90.7%. The AUC for ACE-III total score was 0.978. For MoCA, a cut-off point of 23 yielded a sensitivity of 86.5% and a specificity of 97.7%. The AUC for MoCA was 0.961. There were no significant differences in diagnostic accuracy between ACE-III and MoCA.Conclusion: The present findings support that both ACE-III and MoCA are useful for detecting MCI in early stages.Keywords: Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination III, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, mild cognitive impairment, cognitive screening, Chinese\n

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.270 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group)Same topicHealth, Environment, Cognitive AgingFrench-language works237,207