ArticleNeuropsychology2024
Algorithm-defined memory impairment in older American Indians: The Strong Heart Study.
Article in Neuropsychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAssessment of cognition in American Indians poses challenges, including barriers to healthcare, unvalidated clinical standards, and confounding social determinants of health. Alternative strategies for case identification include algorithmic methods, which can outperform clinical judgment in some circumstances.
methodAlgorithmic methods can be maximized using single-domain tests with multiple-serial trial tasks, such as the California Verbal Learning Test II-Short Form (CVLT-SF). We collected CVLT-SF and detailed clinical data, including dementia gold standard by consensus adjudication, in 818 American Indians aged 65-95 in 2010-2013 and repeated in 403 returning participants in 2017-2019 (mean follow-up 6.7 years, range: 4-9). Our algorithm categorized CVLT-SF scores into four memory deficit categories: none, encoding, storage, and retrieval.
resultsAt Visit 1, 75.4% had no memory deficit, 15.6% encoding deficit, 3.5% storage deficit, and 5.5% retrieval deficit. At Visit 2, comparable percentages were 68.7%, 10.6%, 6.5%, and 14.2% (respectively). The majority with any deficit at Visit 1-especially encoding-were lost to follow-up by Visit 2. Most with deficits at Visit 2 were newly categorized from those previously intact. The performance of our memory algorithm, compared with adjudication for dementia, was moderately good: correct classification 69%, sensitivity 51%, and specificity 91%.
conclusionsThese descriptive findings encompass a novel contribution in defining memory impairment among American Indians from a single cognitive test. However, more work is needed to improve the sensitivity of this algorithm and maximize its utility for case identification over conventional methods. Altogether, these data provide an important step toward better cognitive characterization and dementia care for an understudied, underserved population. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.