Accuracy of cognitive screening instruments reconsidered: overall, balanced or unbiased accuracy?

IF 2.3 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neurodegenerative disease management Pub Date : 2022-04-01 Epub Date: 2022-02-18 DOI:10.2217/nmt-2021-0049
Andrew J Larner
{"title":"Accuracy of cognitive screening instruments reconsidered: overall, balanced or unbiased accuracy?","authors":"Andrew J Larner","doi":"10.2217/nmt-2021-0049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> To examine three different accuracy metrics for evaluation of cognitive screening instruments: overall correct classification accuracy (Acc), the sum of true positives and negatives divided by the total number tested; balanced accuracy (balanced Acc), half of the sum of sensitivity and specificity; and unbiased accuracy (unbiased Acc), removing biasing effects of random associations between test results and disease prevalence. <b>Materials & methods:</b> Data from a prospective test accuracy study of Mini-Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination were used to calculate and plot the Acc measures. <b>Results:</b> Each Acc metric resulted in a similar pattern of results across the range of Mini-Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination cut-offs for diagnosis of both dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Acc and balanced Acc gave more optimistic outcomes (closer to possible maximum value of 1) than unbiased Acc. <b>Conclusion:</b> Unbiased Acc may have advantages over Acc and balanced Acc by removing biasing effects of random associations between test result and disease prevalence.</p>","PeriodicalId":19114,"journal":{"name":"Neurodegenerative disease management","volume":"12 2","pages":"67-76"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurodegenerative disease management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2217/nmt-2021-0049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/2/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Aim: To examine three different accuracy metrics for evaluation of cognitive screening instruments: overall correct classification accuracy (Acc), the sum of true positives and negatives divided by the total number tested; balanced accuracy (balanced Acc), half of the sum of sensitivity and specificity; and unbiased accuracy (unbiased Acc), removing biasing effects of random associations between test results and disease prevalence. Materials & methods: Data from a prospective test accuracy study of Mini-Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination were used to calculate and plot the Acc measures. Results: Each Acc metric resulted in a similar pattern of results across the range of Mini-Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination cut-offs for diagnosis of both dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Acc and balanced Acc gave more optimistic outcomes (closer to possible maximum value of 1) than unbiased Acc. Conclusion: Unbiased Acc may have advantages over Acc and balanced Acc by removing biasing effects of random associations between test result and disease prevalence.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新考虑认知筛查工具的准确性:总体、平衡还是无偏准确性?
目的:探讨认知筛查工具评估的三种不同准确性指标:总正确分类准确率(Acc),真阳性和阴性的总和除以测试总数;平衡准确度(balanced Acc),敏感性和特异性之和的一半;和无偏准确性(unbiased Acc),消除了测试结果和疾病流行之间随机关联的偏倚效应。材料与方法:数据来自Mini-Addenbrooke认知测验的前瞻性测试准确性研究,用于计算和绘制Acc测量值。结果:每个Acc指标在Mini-Addenbrooke认知检查的范围内诊断痴呆和轻度认知障碍的结果模式相似。Acc和平衡Acc比无偏Acc给出更乐观的结果(更接近可能的最大值1)。结论:通过消除检测结果与疾病患病率之间随机关联的偏倚效应,无偏Acc可能比Acc和平衡Acc具有优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊最新文献
Neurofilament light chain: a biomarker at the crossroads of clarity and confusion for gene-directed therapies. An interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation in Parkinson's disease: case series. Patient-reported benefits from nabiximols treatment in multiple sclerosis-related spasticity exceed conventional measures. Welcome to Volume 14 of Neurodegenerative Disease Management. Measuring fatigue in people with multiple sclerosis - which questionnaire should be used? A Plain Language Summary of Publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1