MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403342695 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1429934

Ten-words recall test: an effective tool to differentiate mild cognitive impairment from subjective cognitive decline

2024· article· en· W4403342695 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hua Ren, Feng Qi, Lei Chen, Linlin Li, Jiayu Wang, Jiajing Wu, Li Dong, Tiejun Liu, Ziqi Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentReceiver operating characteristicRecallCognitionLogistic regressionNeuropsychologyNeuropsychological testAudiologyBoston Naming TestArea under the curveMedicineCognitive impairmentInternal medicineCognitive declineDementiaTest (biology)PsychologyDiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are stages 2 and 3, respectively, of the Alzheimer’s continuum. The Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-cog’s) ten-words recall test is a validated method for the early detection of cognitive impairment in Alzheimer’s disease. However, limited studies have investigated its ability to differentiate between SCD and MCI. Methods 203 participants with SCD and 62 participants with MCI underwent multiple neuropsychological assessments. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Basic (MOCA-B) served as brief global cognition tests. A binary logistic regression model was used to analyze the potential factors affecting MCI. The accuracy of the ten-words recall test was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and the area under the curve (AUC). Results The neuropsychological assessment revealed significant differences in the ten-words recall test scores between the SCD (median age 61 years; 70.44% female) and MCI (median age 64 years; 61.29% female) groups (p < 0.001), with the MCI group scoring the highest. Using a cut-off value of 3.15 for the ten-words recall test, sensitivity for distinguishing MCI from SCD reached 87%, while specificity stood at 61% (AUC 0.777, p < 0.001). DeLong’s test indicated no statistically significant difference in the ten-words recall test’s ability to distinguish between SCD and MCI compared to the total score of ADAS-Cog (AUC 0.833, p) and MMSE (AUC 0.784, p > 0.05). However, a significant difference was observed when compared to MoCA-B (AUC 0.973, p < 0.001). In the population with an education level of ≤ 9 years, the optimal cut-off value for the ten-words recall test was 3.15, yielding a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 45% (AUC = 0.674, p = 0.030). In the population with an education level > 9 years, the optimal cut-off value was 3.63, resulting in a sensitivity of 79% and a specificity of 71% (AUC = 0.785, p < 0.001). Discussion The ten-words recall test from the ADAS-cog may detect MCI early owing to its simplicity and quick administration. It is an effective and convenient tool for rapidly identifying mild cognitive impairment.

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)0.004
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychiatrySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207