MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390193728 · doi:10.1002/alz.073955

The Performance of Memory Scales for Predicting Alzheimer’s Disease Biomarkers in Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment Patients

2023· article· en· W4390193728 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yuthachai Sarutikriangkri, Akarin Hiransuthikul, Kittithatch Booncharoen, Poosanu Thanapornsangsuth, Suchart Tangnimitchoke, Yuttachai Likitjaroen

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentReceiver operating characteristicMemory clinicCognitive impairmentMedicineDementiaLogistic regressionPsychologyNeuropsychologyCognitionWechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleDiseaseAudiologyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Anti-amyloid-β therapies have been approved to treat mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) and amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) due to AD. Therefore, diagnosis of AD pathologies is crucial for selecting patients for treatment. Positron emission topography (PET) is used to detect biomarkers for β-amyloid (A) and tau (T). However, the availability of PET is still limited. Neuropsychological tests may help to select patients who are likely to have AD pathologies. This study aims to select a scale with high performance for AD biomarkers in aMCI patients. METHOD: Participants with aMCI were recruited from the Memory Clinic at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital. PET was used to detect AD biomarkers. The Wechsler Memory Scale, Fourth Edition (WMS-IV) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were carried out. We selected four scales which are frequently used to assess AD patients including Visual Reproduction (VR), Logical Memory (LM), and Verbal Paired Associates (VPA) from the WMS-IV and the Memory Index Scale (MIS) from the MoCA to analyze as predictors. Patients with A+T+ were defined as aMCI with AD biomarkers (aMCI-AD). Patients with A+T- and A-T- were defined as aMCI with non-pathophysiology of AD (aMCI-npAD). Multivariable logistic regression was used to construct the predictive model. Area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was used to identify the best model in predicting A+T+. RESULT: Among 35 participants enrolled (18 aMCI-AD and 17 aMCI-npAD), 25 (71.4%) were female. The mean age and education were 71.3±8.1 and 13.8±4.4 years, respectively. The predictive model using LM demonstrated the highest AUROC of 0.84 (95%CI 0.70-0.93), with a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 0.83, 0.71, 0.75, and 0.80, respectively, at the cut-point with highest accuracy of 77.1%; followed by VR (AUROC 0.78; 95%CI 0.61-0.95), MIS (0.74; 95%CI 0.57-0.91), and VPA (0.68; 95%CI 0.50-0.87). CONCLUSION: LM has the highest performance for AD pathologies among the 4 scales to predict AD biomarkers in aMCI. We propose that before undergoing PET, LM may be an appropriate test for selected aMCI patients with a high chance of having AD pathologies.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.285 · 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→