MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Consensus-Harmonized Neuropsychological Assessment for Vascular Cognitive Impairment and Dementia

2025· article· en· W4417164418 on OpenAlexaffabout
Adam C. Bentvelzen, Nicole A. Kochan, Danit Saks, Russell J. Chander, Rebecca Koncz, Stina Aam, Gilberto Sousa Alves, Emily M. Briceño, Amy Brodtmann, Chiara Cerami, Úna Clancy, Lucette A. Cysique, Ian J. Deary, Charles DeCarli, Alessandra Dodich, Olivier Godefroy, Angela C.C. Jochems, Hanna Jokinen, Yeonwook Kang, Frini Karayanidis, Roy P. C. Kessels, Iiris Kyläheiko, Kurt Lancaster, Erika J. Laukka, Deborah A. Levine, Anna Marseglia, Matthew P. Pase, Ruth Peters, David P. Salmon, Emilia Salvadori, Steven D. Shirk, Kathryn A. Stokes, Felipe Kenji Sudo, Mathew J. Summers, Susan Vandermorris, Brandon P. Vasquez, Perminder S. Sachdev

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBaycrest Hospital
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilNational Institutes of HealthDirectorate for Biological SciencesNational Institute on AgingDirection Générale de l’offre de SoinsUniversity of New South Wales
KeywordsNeuropsychologyDementiaNeuropsychological assessmentCognitive impairmentVascular dementiaCognitionNeuropsychological testCognitive Assessment System

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Harmonization of neuropsychological assessment for vascular cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID) is important for ensuring the highest standards and consistency of diagnosis. A battery proposed in 2006 by the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the Canadian Stroke Network (NINDS-CSN) has received much international support. Considering significant advances in the field, including the rise of computerized and remote assessment methods, a revision is needed. Objective: To develop an updated harmonized battery and associated assessment guidelines for VCID. Evidence Review: NINDS-CSN and other relevant published harmonized neuropsychological batteries, aided by literature review of recent developments in VCID, were used as reference points for an online Delphi survey (≥3 rounds, ≥75% threshold for agreement), including questions on a core test battery based on key cognitive domains that should be assessed for VCID, consideration of computerized and remote assessment methods, and assessment of diverse populations. International experts in neuropsychological assessment from diverse international regions were invited to participate in 2023. Data were analyzed from October 11, 2023, to June 20, 2024. Findings: A total of 44 experts participated in 3 survey rounds, with 28 to 31 participants each. Consensus was reached on a core assessment battery of neuropsychological tests based on key cognitive domains, and additional guidelines for a more comprehensive test battery, cognitive screening, telehealth and computerized assessment methods, principles for normative standardization, and the assessment of diverse populations. The key cognitive domains were harmonized with the International Society for Vascular Behavioural and Cognitive Disorders version 2 World Stroke Organization (VasCog-2-WSO) diagnostic criteria for VCID. Conclusions and Relevance: This consensus statement describes the development of a harmonized neuropsychological assessment battery and guidelines for VCID (VasCog-NP) that expands on the NINDS-CSN battery with more comprehensive and flexible assessment of VCID. Harmonized with the VasCog-2-WSO diagnostic criteria, VasCog-NP could be adopted internationally to further help more consistent neuropsychological evaluations related to VCID, facilitating global comparisons for clinicians and researchers.

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)0.287
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.315
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.880

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2870.315
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0070.014
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.355 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207