Suppr超能文献

10/66痴呆研究小组的完全实施的DSM-IV痴呆症计算机诊断算法,与10/66痴呆症算法及临床医生诊断的比较:一项群体验证研究。

The 10/66 Dementia Research Group's fully operationalised DSM-IV dementia computerized diagnostic algorithm, compared with the 10/66 dementia algorithm and a clinician diagnosis: a population validation study.

作者信息

Prince Martin J, de Rodriguez Juan Llibre, Noriega L, Lopez A, Acosta Daisy, Albanese Emiliano, Arizaga Raul, Copeland John R M, Dewey Michael, Ferri Cleusa P, Guerra Mariella, Huang Yueqin, Jacob K S, Krishnamoorthy E S, McKeigue Paul, Sousa Renata, Stewart Robert J, Salas Aquiles, Sosa Ana Luisa, Uwakwa Richard

机构信息

Section of Epidemiology, Health Services Research, King's College London, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK.

出版信息

BMC Public Health. 2008 Jun 24;8:219. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-219.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The criterion for dementia implicit in DSM-IV is widely used in research but not fully operationalised. The 10/66 Dementia Research Group sought to do this using assessments from their one phase dementia diagnostic research interview, and to validate the resulting algorithm in a population-based study in Cuba.

METHODS

The criterion was operationalised as a computerised algorithm, applying clinical principles, based upon the 10/66 cognitive tests, clinical interview and informant reports; the Community Screening Instrument for Dementia, the CERAD 10 word list learning and animal naming tests, the Geriatric Mental State, and the History and Aetiology Schedule - Dementia Diagnosis and Subtype. This was validated in Cuba against a local clinician DSM-IV diagnosis and the 10/66 dementia diagnosis (originally calibrated probabilistically against clinician DSM-IV diagnoses in the 10/66 pilot study).

RESULTS

The DSM-IV sub-criteria were plausibly distributed among clinically diagnosed dementia cases and controls. The clinician diagnoses agreed better with 10/66 dementia diagnosis than with the more conservative computerized DSM-IV algorithm. The DSM-IV algorithm was particularly likely to miss less severe dementia cases. Those with a 10/66 dementia diagnosis who did not meet the DSM-IV criterion were less cognitively and functionally impaired compared with the DSMIV confirmed cases, but still grossly impaired compared with those free of dementia.

CONCLUSION

The DSM-IV criterion, strictly applied, defines a narrow category of unambiguous dementia characterized by marked impairment. It may be specific but incompletely sensitive to clinically relevant cases. The 10/66 dementia diagnosis defines a broader category that may be more sensitive, identifying genuine cases beyond those defined by our DSM-IV algorithm, with relevance to the estimation of the population burden of this disorder.

摘要

背景

《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版(DSM-IV)中隐含的痴呆症标准在研究中被广泛使用,但尚未完全实施。10/66痴呆症研究小组试图通过其一阶段痴呆症诊断研究访谈中的评估来实现这一点,并在古巴的一项基于人群的研究中验证所得算法。

方法

该标准被转化为一种基于临床原则的计算机化算法,应用于10/66认知测试、临床访谈和 informant 报告;痴呆症社区筛查工具、CERAD 10词表学习和动物命名测试、老年精神状态以及病史和病因学时间表 - 痴呆症诊断与亚型。在古巴,该算法针对当地临床医生的DSM-IV诊断和10/66痴呆症诊断进行了验证(最初在10/66试点研究中根据临床医生的DSM-IV诊断进行概率校准)。

结果

DSM-IV子标准在临床诊断的痴呆症病例和对照中分布合理。临床医生的诊断与10/66痴呆症诊断的一致性优于与更保守的计算机化DSM-IV算法的一致性。DSM-IV算法特别容易遗漏病情较轻的痴呆症病例。与DSM-IV确诊病例相比,那些被诊断为10/66痴呆症但不符合DSM-IV标准的人在认知和功能上的受损程度较轻,但与无痴呆症的人相比仍有严重受损。

结论

严格应用的DSM-IV标准定义了一个以明显损害为特征的明确痴呆症狭窄类别。它可能具有特异性,但对临床相关病例的敏感性不完全。10/66痴呆症诊断定义了一个更广泛的类别,可能更敏感,识别出超出我们DSM-IV算法定义的真正病例,与该疾病人群负担的估计相关。

相似文献

6
[The estimation of premorbid intelligence levels in French speakers].[法语使用者病前智力水平的评估]
Encephale. 2005 Jan-Feb;31(1 Pt 1):31-43. doi: 10.1016/s0013-7006(05)82370-x.
7
Dementia diagnostic criteria in Down syndrome.唐氏综合征的痴呆诊断标准。
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2015 Aug;30(8):857-63. doi: 10.1002/gps.4228. Epub 2014 Nov 3.
10
Mild Neurocognitive Disorder: An Old Wine in a New Bottle.轻度神经认知障碍:新瓶装旧酒。
Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2015 Sep-Oct;23(5):368-76. doi: 10.1097/HRP.0000000000000084.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

4
Construct validity in psychological tests.心理测试中的结构效度。
Psychol Bull. 1955 Jul;52(4):281-302. doi: 10.1037/h0040957.
5
The magnitude of dementia occurrence in the world.全球痴呆症的发病规模。
Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2003 Apr-Jun;17(2):63-7. doi: 10.1097/00002093-200304000-00002.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验