Abstract TP440: The Discriminant Validity of the NINDS-CSN Harmonization Neurocognitive Battery in Detecting VCI in Singaporean Patients with Ischemic Stroke and TIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: An international standard for the diagnosis of Vascular Cognitive Impairment (VCI) is currently in development. We report preliminary findings of Singaporean contribution to theNINDS-Canadian Stroke Network (NINDS-CSN) neuropsychological protocol harmonization study. Purpose: We examined the discriminant validity of 3 neuropsychological protocols (60 Minute (M), 30M and 5M) by comparing cognitive performance of patients with stroke and TIA to cognitively normal controls. Methods: Patients (≥50 years old) with stroke or TIA and the controls were administered the NINDS-CSN harmonization neurocognitive battery by trained psychometricians blinded to the group status of the patients or controls. ANCOVA was conducted to compare the between group cognitive performance. ROC analyses were employed to examine the ability of the 3 protocols and the cognitive domains of the 60M protocol in discriminating patients with ischemic stroke or TIA from the controls. Results: 52 patients and 64 controls were recruited. Patients were significantly older with lower level education and more self-reported depressive symptoms than the controls (mean age 67.7±9.2 vs 62.2±6.7, p<.001; years of education: 6.5±4.6 vs 11.5±4.1, p<.001; Geriatric Depression Scale: 3.0±3.7 vs 1.0±1.0, p<.01). Using age, education and GDS as covariates, ANCOVA showed that the performance of stroke and TIA group were significantly poorer than controls on the 5-min, 30-min and 60-min protocols (F statistics range from 7.1 to 38.7, p<.01). ROC analyses showed adequate discriminatory abilities of these 3 protocols (AUCs range from 0.80 to 0.84). Executive function and memory domains of the 60M protocol were two most sensitive and specific domains in discriminating patients with stroke and TIA from the controls (AUCs: 0.87, 0.81, respectively). Conclusions: The results demonstrated preliminary evidence for the validity of the NINDS-CSN neurocognitive battery in discriminating patients with ischemic stroke and TIA from cognitively normal controls.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".