The Accuracy of Screening for Post-stroke Cognitive Impairment Assessment Tools: a Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) brings a heavy burden to patients and their families. An early recognition and intervention can help delay the occurrence and development of PSCI. Therefore, the use of accurate neuropsychological assessment tools to screen for PSCI is essential for the management and treatment of PSCI. Objective To analyze the screening accuracy of assessment tools for PSCI by meta-analysis, thus providing references for an accurate screening of PSCI. Methods Diagnostic trials on screening tools of PSCI published from the establishment of the database to December 2022 were searched in CNKI, VIP, Wanfang Data, SinoMed, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library. Two researchers respectively screened literatures, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Stata 17.0 software was used to analyze the data. Results A total of 57 articles were included, involving 7 assessment tools [the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke-Canadian Stroke Network 5-Minute Battery (NINDS-CSN 5-Minutes), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE), the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised (ACE-R), the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status Modified (TICS-m) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment 5-minute protocol (MoCA-5 min) ] to screen 12 113 patients. Meta-analysis results showed that the combined sensitivity and specificity of MoCA in screening PSCI were 0.84 (95%CI=0.80-0.87) and 0.74 (95%CI=0.67-0.80), respectively, with a combined area under the curve (AUC) of 0.87 (95%CI=0.84-0.90). The combined sensitivity and specificity of MMSE in screening PSCI were 0.73 (95%CI=0.67-0.79) and 0.76 (95%CI=0.69-0.82), respectively, with a combined AUC of 0.81 (95%CI=0.77-0.84). The combined sensitivity and specificity of IQCODE in screening PSCI were 0.73 (95%CI=0.48-0.89) and 0.95 (95%CI=0.75-0.99), respectively, with a combined AUC of 0.91 (95%CI=0.88-0.93). The combined sensitivity and specificity of the NINDS-CSN 5-min in screening PSCI were 0.83 (95%CI=0.78-0.87) and 0.69 (95%CI=0.60-0.76), respectively, with a combined AUC of 0.85 (95%CI=0.81-0.88). The combined sensitivity and specificity of the ACE-R in screening PSCI were 0.90 (95%CI=0.80-0.95) and 0.61 (95%CI=0.19-0.91), respectively, with a combined AUC of 0.90 (95%CI=0.87-0.92). The combined sensitivity and specificity of TICS-m in screening PSCI were 0.84 (95%CI=0.75-0.91) and 0.67 (95%CI=0.61-0.74), respectively, with a combined AUC of 0.66 (95%CI=0.60-0.71) . Conclusion The combined AUC of IQCODE and ACE-R is larger, and the former as a higher combined specificity and the latter has a higher combined sensitivity. Therefore, IQCODE and ACE-R are optimal assessment tools to accurately screen PSCI. Due to the limited number of literatures reporting the IQCODE and ACE-R in screening PSCI, our conclusions still need to be validated by multicenter and large-sample studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".