MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406051246 · doi:10.1002/alz.091664

TabCAT Brain Health Assessment: Preliminary validation in a multicultural Israeli population

2024· article· en· W4406051246 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rafi Haddad, Elena Tsoy, David Tanné, Rawan Ayoub, Essam Shihada, Yarovinsky Natalya, Sabrina J. Erlhoff, Tali Fisher, Judith Aharon‐Peretz, Rachel Ben‐Hayun, Victor Valcour, Katherine L. Possin

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentDementiaCognitionNeuropsychological assessmentClinical psychologyPopulationPsychologyMedical diagnosisNeuropsychologyCognitive declineMedicinePsychiatryGerontologyCognitive impairmentInternal medicineDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Israeli population, primarily comprised of Israeli Jews (74%) and Arabs (21%), is one of the most diverse aging societies around the world. The need for brief, accurate, and culturally appropriate cognitive measures in Israel is high, as they can facilitate early detection of cognitive disorders across clinical settings. We examined the discrimination accuracy and concurrent validity of the brief Tablet-based Cognitive Assessment Tool (TabCAT) Brain Health Assessment (BHA) battery in a multicultural Israeli sample. METHODS: Participants were 79 Hebrew and Arabic speaking older adults (age: 67±6; 58% female; education: 15±4). Clinically normal participants (n = 63) were community-dwelling individuals with no self- or informant-reported cognitive symptoms or functional decline. Cognitively impaired participants (n = 16) with diagnoses of mild cognitive impairment (n = 15) or dementia (n = 1) were recruited from a large neurology center. Diagnoses were based on the published clinical criteria, and all patients underwent comprehensive neurological and neuropsychological evaluations independent of study procedures. All participants completed the TabCAT-BHA and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in their primary language. Logistic regressions with ROC curves were used to examine discrimination accuracy, controlling for age, sex, education, and testing language. Concurrent validity was evaluated against the MoCA indices for the same domains. RESULTS: The TabCAT-BHA battery showed excellent discrimination accuracy (AUC = .99, sensitivity = .81, and specificity = .95) outperforming the MoCA (AUC = .94, sensitivity = .63, specificity = 0.97). Moderate associations were observed between TabCAT Favorites (associative memory) and MoCA Memory Index (r = .49, P < .001), and between TabCAT Match (executive functions) and MoCA Executive Index (r = .64, P < .001). Weaker associations were found between TabCAT Line Orientation (visuospatial skills) and MoCA Visuospatial Index (r = -.27, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary findings support the validity of the 10-minute TabCAT-BHA battery in culturally diverse Israeli older adults. The battery exhibited excellent performance in detecting cognitive impairment in our sample outperforming a widely used brief cognitive assessment tool, the MoCA. Future studies, including development of Israel-specific normative data and replication of these results in larger samples, are ongoing.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207