MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406030127 · doi:10.1002/alz.092908

Accuracy of cognitive and functional screening tests to Clinical Dementia Rating in an Outpatient Memory Clinic

2024· article· en· W4406030127 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Giovanna Correia Pereira Moro, João Vitor da Silva Viana, Gabriela Tomé Oliveira Engelmann, Ivonne Carolina Bolaños Burgos, Bruna Fugêncio Dias, Carolina Campos Lima Moreira, Karoline Freire Kosac, Érika de Oliveira Hansen, Marco Aurélio Romano‐Silva, Bernardo de Mattos Viana, Maria Aparecida Camargos Bicalho

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical Dementia RatingDementiaMedicineMemory clinicReceiver operating characteristicCognitive testCohortNeuropsychologyCognitionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentGerontologyPsychiatryDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Short screening tools designed to detect cognitive impairment are important for clinical and research. The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) is the main used categorization system, which classifies from no dementia, to questionable dementia/mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and three severities of dementia. OBJECTIVE: To conduct an accuracy analysis of different short screening tests to predict CDR scores on a cohort of a Memory Clinic. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study, using data from the Cog-Aging cohort study in 2023. Participants go through a comprehensive clinical, neuropsychological and neuroimaging assessment to determine the diagnosis and CDR. Eighty participants were recruited: 11 controls, 43 MCI, and 26 Dementia. Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), Figure Memory Test's delayed recall in the Brief Cognitive Screening Battery (FMT-BCSB), The Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease's word list delayed recall (DR-CERAD) and Short-version of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) were used to distinguish the CDR scores. Participants were classified based on CDR (0; 0.5; and 1-2). We performed a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve and cut-off values defined by Youden's J statistic comparing: CDR 0 x CDR 0,5; CDR 0,5 x CDR 1-2; CDR 0 x CDR 1-2. This study was approved by the ethics committee of UFMG. RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 77.7 yr. (SD 6.9) and median 6.1 years of education (IQR 5.25). The DR-CERAD had the best area under the curve (AUC) (0.863) to distinguish CDR 0 to 0.5, with 88% sensitivity with cut-off points of 5 / 6. Comparing CDR 0.5 to 1-2, IQCODE had the largest AUC (0,884) with 92% sensitivity with cut-off ≥ 3,78. Comparing CDR 0 to 1-2, the DR-CERAD had the largest AUC (0.987), with 88% sensitivity with cut-off points of 3 / 4. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that DR-CERAD is the most accurate to distinguish MCI to normal cognition, and normal cognition to dementia in this sample. IQCODE presented as the best to distinguish MCI to dementia. These are preliminary results and more studies with years of education and a larger sample are necessary.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.316 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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