Computerized testing augments pencil-and-paper tasks in measuring HIV-associated mild cognitive impairment*
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Existing tools for rapid cognitive assessment in HIV-positive individuals with mild cognitive deficits lack sensitivity or do not meet psychometric requirements for tracking changes in cognitive ability over time. METHODS: Seventy-five nondemented HIV-positive patients were evaluated with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), a brief battery of standardized neuropsychological tests, and computerized tasks evaluating frontal-executive function and processing speed. Rasch analyses were applied to the MoCA data set and subsequently to the full set of data from all tests. RESULTS: The MoCA was found to adequately measure cognitive ability as a single, global construct in this HIV-positive cohort, although it showed poorer precision for measuring patients of higher ability. Combining the additional tests with the MoCA resulted in a battery with better psychometric properties that also better targeted the range of abilities in this cohort. CONCLUSION: This application of modern test development techniques shows a path towards a quick, quantitative, global approach to cognitive assessment with promise both for initial detection and for longitudinal follow-up of cognitive impairment in patients with HIV infection.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it