MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4312086343 · doi:10.1002/alz.068010

Utility of online cognitive test in cognitive neurology unit

2022· article· en· W4312086343 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charlotte B Curnin, Takuji Hayashi, Mauice A Smith, Daniel Z. Press

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliriumCognitionMedicineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentNeuropsychologyNeurologyCognitive Assessment SystemDementiaCognitive testMedical recordDemographicsCognitive impairmentPediatricsPsychiatryInternal medicineDiseaseDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Delirium is one of the most common complications in hospitalized elders and corresponds with a higher risk of cognitive decline and death. Numerous test batteries exist to assist clinicians in detecting delirium, but it continues to be undiagnosed in up to 88% of patients, particularly those with AD where “confusion” is mistakenly attributed to impaired baseline (1). This pilot study investigated the utility of a digital cognitive assessment (D‐Cog), in the form of an iPad game, which would allow for rapid and routine baseline testing in patients with AD so that delirium‐induced changes can be easily detected. Method While collecting traditional vital signs, medical assistants in the Beth Israel Deaconess Center (BIDMC) Cognitive Neurology Unit (CNU) prompted 67 willing patients to complete the D‐Cog assessment, an adaptive visuospatial span task, on an iPad. We then retrospectively reviewed the medical records of each patient to collect diagnosis, demographics, and pen‐and‐paper neuropsychological scores (e.g., MoCA or MMSE). Of the 67 patients (mean age 67, 29 female), 22 were clinically diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or varying severities of AD. Result The assessment was successfully completed by 52 participants. 15 participants, including 5 participants with moderate AD, experienced great difficulty during the task and were subsequently excluded. The 17 included participants with AD (mean age 75, 6 female) averaged a D‐Cog score of 4.1 and a MMSE score of 23.1. In comparison, a control group with no cognitive concerns (n = 16, mean age 60, 9 female) garnered a 6.7 average D‐Cog score and 29.3 MMSE score. The difference in D‐Cog scores was significantly different at p = 0.001. Conclusion The D‐Cog assessment is feasible in clinical practice for patients with a wide range of cognitive impairments. These scores can act as an attentional baseline to compare against later testing in the event of suspected delirium. While the D‐Cog is derived from traditional pen‐and‐paper testing, its digital framework offers new opportunities for adaptive and remote testing. Reference Fong TG, Davis D, Grodon ME, Albuquerque A, Inouye SK. The interface between delirium and dementia in elderly adults. Lancet Neruol. 2015; 14(8): 823–32

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)0.006
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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders→French-language works237,207→