Validez y fiabilidad de la batería neuropsicológica CERAD-Col
Open accessAbstract
INTRODUCTION: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is an important public health problem due to its disabling character and high individual, familial and social costs. The CERAD neuropsychological battery has been widely used for evaluation and diagnosis of the cognitive deficit associated with AD. This instrument has been adapted to the Colombian culture (CERAD-Col) for the Neurosciences Group. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A study was carried out to establish the validity and reliability of the CERAD-Col in Colombian, Spanish-speaking individuals aged 50 years or more. It included 151 controls and 151 AD patients. Controls were selected from a convenience sample of 848 adults aged 50 years or more. The construct validity was determined in three ways: 1) factorial analysis; 2) correlation with the functional scales FAST and GDS (convergent-type validity) and, 3) comparison between the two groups. Internal consistency was determined by means of Cronbach's alpha coefficient. RESULTS: Three factors -memory, language and praxis- explained 88% of the total variance. Moderate but statistically significant correlations were found between neuropsychological tests and functional scales. Internal consistency and test-retest reproducibility were high. The AD group exhibited significantly lower scores (p < 0.05) than the control one. CONCLUSION: CERAD-Col is valid and reliable for the diagnosis of AD in Colombian Spanish-speaking population aged 50 years or more.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
ApoE4 had higher heparin affinity than ApoE3 and ApoE2.
“Our analyses of heparin binding showed that ApoE4 had higher affinity for heparin compared to ApoE3 and ApoE217.”
From Resistance to autosomal dominant Alzheimer’s disease in an APOE3 Christchurch homozygote: a case report (2019) · cites this paper as [17]
The available copy’s Subjects and methods and Results passages describe validation of the CERAD-Col neuropsychological battery, not heparin-binding experiments. Searches for ApoE isoforms and heparin affinity or binding found no passage addressing the comparison. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Moms, J. C., Heyman, A., Mohs, R. C., Hughes, J. P., van Belle, G., Fillenbaum, G., Mellits, E. D., & Clark, C. (1989) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.39.9.1159 · Cited by 4,130 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Arboleda-Velasquez, J. F., Lopera, F., O’Hare, M., Delgado-Tirado, S., Marino, C., Chmielewska, N., Saez-Torres, K. L., Amarnani, D., Schultz, A. P., Sperling, R. A., et al. (2019) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-019-0611-3 · Cited by 598 · see citing works
Reiman, E. M., Quiroz, Y. T., Fleisher, A. S., Chen, K., Velez-Pardo, C., Jimenez-Del-Rio, M., Fagan, A. M., Shah, A. R., Alvarez, S., Arbelaez, A., et al. (2012) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(12)70228-4 · Cited by 541 · see citing works
Acosta-Baena, N., Sepulveda-Falla, D., Lopera-Gómez, C. M., Jaramillo-Elorza, M. C., Moreno, S., Aguirre-Acevedo, D. C., Saldarriaga, A., & Lopera, F. (2011) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(10)70323-9 · Cited by 263 · see citing works
Torres, V. L., Vila-Castelar, C., Bocanegra, Y., Baena, A., Guzmán-Vélez, E., Aguirre-Acevedo, D. C., Tirado, V., Munoz, C., Henao, E., Moreno, S., et al. (2021) · Applied Neuropsychology: Adult · doi:10.1080/23279095.2019.1627357 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Aguirre-Acevedo, D. C., Jaimes-Barragán, F., Henao, E., Tirado, V., Muñoz, C., Reiman, E. M., Tariot, P. N., Langbaum, J. B., & Lopera, F. (2016) · International Psychogeriatrics · doi:10.1017/s1041610215001660 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Aguirre Acevedo, D. C., Gómez, R. D., Moreno Másmela, S., Henao Arboleda, E., Motta Artunduaga, M., Muñoz, C., Arana, A., Pineda Salazar, D. A., & Lopera Restrepo, F.
- ORCID
- Muñoz, Claudia
- Venue
- Revista de Neurología
- Publisher
- IMR Press
- Published
- 2007
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 655
- ISSN
- 0210-0010 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4323284468
- Cited by
- 104
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 1.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- es
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- Revista de Neurología (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Institutional Repository University of Antioquia (University of Antioquia) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Keywords
- Alzheimer's disease, cognitive impairment, test validation, construct validity, test-retest reliability, memory, language, praxis, older adults, Spanish-speaking populations
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alzheimer Disease, Colombia, Female, Humans, Language Tests, Male, Memory Disorders, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychomotor Performance, Reproducibility of Results
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
