Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conclusions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Manual of Screeners for Dementia

  • 837 Accesses

Abstract

This final chapter summarises existing and novel unitary or global metrics used in screening test accuracy studies, with particular emphasis on the novel measures, likelihood to be diagnosed or misdiagnosed (LDM), summary utility index (SUI) and number needed for screening utility (NNSU), which have been showcased in this book.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Citrome L, Ketter TA. When does a difference make a difference? Interpretation of number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed. Int J Clin Pract. 2013;67:407–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Diagnostic tests 4: likelihood ratios. BMJ. 2004;329:168–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Edwards AWF. The measure of association in a 2x2 table. J R Stat Soc Ser A. 1963;126:109–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fawcett T. An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognit Lett. 2006;27:861–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PM. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:1129–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Habibzadeh F, Yadollahie M. Number needed to misdiagnose: a measure of diagnostic test effectiveness. Epidemiology. 2013;24:170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Larner AJ. Number needed to diagnose, predict, or misdiagnose: useful metrics for non-canonical signs of cognitive status? Dement Geriatr Cogn Dis Extra. 2018;8:321–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Larner AJ. New unitary metrics for dementia test accuracy studies. Prog Neurol Psychiatry. 2019a;23(3):21–5.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Larner AJ. What is test accuracy? Comparing unitary accuracy metrics for cognitive screening instruments. Neurodegener Dis Manag. 2019b;9:277–81.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Larner AJ. MACE for diagnosis of dementia and MCI: examining cut-offs and predictive values. Diagnostics (Basel). 2019c;9:E51.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Larner AJ. Evaluating cognitive screening instruments with the “likelihood to be diagnosed or misdiagnosed” measure. Int J Clin Pract. 2019d;73:e13265.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Larner AJ. Applying Kraemer’s Q (positive sign rate): some implications for diagnostic test accuracy study results. Dement Geriatr Cogn Dis Extra. 2019e;9:389–96.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Larner AJ. Defining “optimal” test cut-off using global test metrics: evidence from a cognitive screening instrument. 2020a;submitted.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Larner AJ. Mini-Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination (MACE): a useful cognitive screening instrument in older people? Can Geriatr J. 2020b;23:in press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Linn S, Grunau PD. New patient-oriented summary measure of net total gain in certainty for dichotomous diagnostic tests. Epidemiol Perspect Innov. 2006;3:11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mallett S, Halligan S, Thompson M, Collins GS, Altman DG. Interpreting diagnostic accuracy studies for patient care. BMJ. 2012;345:e3999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Matthews BW. Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of T4 phage lysozyme. Biochem Biophys Acta. 1975;405:442–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Powers DMW. Evaluation: from precision, recall and F-measure to ROC, informedness, markedness and correlation. J Machine Learning Technologies. 2011;2:37–63.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Richard E, Schmand BA, Eikelenboom P, Van Gool WA, The Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. MRI and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for predicting progression to Alzheimer’s disease in patients with mild cognitive impairment: a diagnostic accuracy study. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002541.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Williamson JC, Larner AJ. “Likelihood to be diagnosed or misdiagnosed”: application to meta-analytic data for cognitive screening instruments. Neurodegener Dis Manag. 2019;9:91–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wojtowicz A, Larner AJ. Diagnostic test accuracy of cognitive screeners in older people. Prog Neurol Psychiatry. 2017;21(1):17–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer. 1950;3:32–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Youngstrom EA. A primer on receiver operating characteristic analysis and diagnostic efficiency statistics for pediatric psychology: we are ready to ROC. J Pediatr Psychol. 2014;39:204–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ziso B, Larner AJ. AD8: Likelihood to diagnose or misdiagnose. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2019a;90:A20. https://jnnp.bmj.com/content/90/12/A20.1.

  25. Ziso B, Larner AJ. Codex (cognitive disorders examination) decision tree modified for the detection of dementia and MCI. Diagnostics (Basel). 2019;9:E58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cognitive Function Clinic, Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Liverpool, UK

    A. J. Larner

Authors
  1. A. J. Larner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. J. Larner .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Larner, A.J. (2020). Conclusions. In: Manual of Screeners for Dementia. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41636-2_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41636-2_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-41635-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-41636-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation