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.

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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信