MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390193466 · doi:10.1002/alz.071377

Examining the measurement equivalence of Alzheimer’s Disease Centre Neuropsychological Test Battery (Version 3) across two distinct cultures

2023· article· en· W4390193466 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sze Yan Tay, Way Inn Koay, Tau Ming Liew

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaNeuropsychologyPopulationNeuropsychological testCognitionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentNeuropsychological assessmentGerontologyPsychologyConfidence intervalCognitive declineMedicineClinical psychologyDiseasePsychiatryPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Neuropsychological assessments are important in clinical diagnostic process for dementia as it help early detection of cognitive difficulties. Prior to using neuropsychological test batteries across different populations, it is critical to standardize the battery to ensure consistency in the assessment process, as well as valid and comparable results across different settings. The Alzheimer’s Disease Centre Neuropsychological Test Battery (Version 3) (ADCNTB3) is a widely used battery that had shown sensitivity in detecting cognitive decline in MCI and early dementia, with minimal test repetition effects (Boccardi et. al., 2022). While norms are available in America, harmonization efforts are currently in place to adapt ADCNTB3 for European populations. Method This study examined whether ADCNTB3 could be adapted to Singapore (multi‐ethic Asian population), a culture distinctly different from America, and whether ADCNTB3 demonstrates measurement equivalence when adapted to the Singapore population. Following the qualitative process of cultural adaptation, the ADCNTB3 was administered to 266 community‐dwelling older persons with normal cognition in Singapore. Scores from these participants were then compared with 1064 random samples with normal cognition from National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Centre (NACC) to evaluate whether the ADCNTB3 has equivalent scores across the two distinct populations. Score‐difference between the 2 populations was computed using multiple linear regression (adjusted for age, education, gender, family history of dementia, cardiovascular conditions, psychiatric and neurological history, smoking, untreated hearing loss, obesity, MoCA total score, CDR sum of boxes, NPI‐Q total score) and equivalence scores are considered to be present if the 90% confidence interval of the adjusted score‐difference fall within the equivalence margin. A priori, we defined the equivalence margin as 0.5 Standard Deviation of tests from ADCNTB3, as this often defines the minimally important clinical significance (Sloan et al., 2005). Result Other than working and delayed memory tasks, all other tests from the ADCNTB3 are not directly equivalent. Notably, Asians performed better in visuospatial task, but consistently performed poorer in most other tasks. Conclusion Other than working and delayed memory tasks, all other tests from the ADCNTB3 are not directly equivalent. Notably, Asians performed better in visuospatial task, but consistently performed poorer in most other tasks.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→