MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391611966 · doi:10.1002/brb3.3413

Visual Cognitive Assessment Test: Utility of the brief cognitive battery for early screening of cognitive impairment in Chongqing, China

2024· article· en· W4391611966 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yidan Liu, Binbin Xie, Qin Li, Shufang Xiao, Jiamin Li, Nagaendran Kandiah, Kok Pin Ng, Liumi Jiang, Xiaofeng Li

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain and Behavior · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChongqing Medical UniversityU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsCronbach's alphaDementiaMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionConstruct validityPsychologyPopulationNeuropsychological assessmentAudiologyClinical psychologyMedicinePhysical therapyNeuropsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychometricsCognitive impairmentPsychiatryInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Early detection of cognitive impairment is essential for timely intervention. Currently, most widely used cognitive screening tests are influenced by language and cultural differences; therefore, there is a need for the development of a language-neutral, visual-based cognitive assessment tool. The Visual Cognitive Assessment Test (VCAT), a 30-point test that assesses memory, executive function, visuospatial function, attention, and language, has demonstrated its utility in a multilingual population. In this study, we evaluated the reliability, validity, and diagnostic performance of the VCAT for screening early cognitive impairment in Chongqing, China METHODS: A total of 134 individuals (49 healthy controls (HCs), 52 with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 33 with mild dementia) completed the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), VCAT, and domain-specific neuropsychological assessments. The diagnostic performances of MMSE, MoCA, and VCAT were evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity. Construct validity of the VCAT was assessed with well-established domain-specific cognitive assessments. Reliability was measured using Cronbach's alpha. RESULTS: The VCAT and its subdomains demonstrated both good construct validity and internal consistency (α = 0.577). The performance of VCAT was comparable to that of MoCA and MMSE in differentiating mild dementia from nondemented groups (AUC: 0.940 vs. 0.902 and 0.977, respectively; p = .098 and .053) and in distinguishing cognitive impairment (CI) from HC (AUC: 0.929 vs. 0.899 and 0.891, respectively; p = .239 and .161), adjusted for education level. The optimal score range for VCAT in determining dementia, MCI, and HC was 0-14, 15-19, and 20-30, respectively. CONCLUSION: The VCAT proves to be a reliable screening test for early cognitive impairment within our cohort. Being both language and cultural neutral, the VCAT has the potential to be utilized among a wider population within China.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain and BehaviorSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207