MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967296946 · doi:10.1016/j.acn.2005.12.003

Concurrent validity of abbreviated WAIS-III index scores in geriatric outpatients with suspected dementia

2006· article· en· W1967296946 on OpenAlexafffund
Brian L. Brooks, Lawrence T. Weaver

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Clinical Neuropsychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsRockyview General HospitalRiverview HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical ResearchFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsDementiaConcurrent validityIndex (typography)PsychologyWechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleShort FormsPsychometricsPopulationBarthel indexAudiologyClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryCognitionActivities of daily livingInternal consistency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessments of older adults with suspected dementia can be time limited and clinicians might consider using abbreviated versions of measures. The present study examined the concurrent validity of abbreviated WAIS-III index scores in a sample of geriatric patients referred for assessment of suspected dementia (N=43; mean age=63.8 years). All 2-subtest estimates of the Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Organization, and Working Memory index scores accurately estimated more than 80% of cases within +/-2 standard errors of measurement (S.E.M.), and in most cases, more than 90% of cases were accurate at this level. While none of the 1-subtest estimates of these index scores were as accurate, both of the 1-subtest estimates of the Processing Speed index had high clinical accuracy. Abbreviated versions of the four index scores can be substituted in situations with this clinical population where testing time is limited or a patient fatigues easily.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.346 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Clinical NeuropsychologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207