MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970513330 · doi:10.1016/j.acn.2005.07.007

WAIS-III General Ability Index in neuropsychiatry and forensic psychiatry inpatient samples☆

2005· article· en· W1970513330 on OpenAlexaff
Grant L. Iverson, Rael T. Lange, Hendré Viljoen, Johann Brink

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Clinical Neuropsychology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaRiverview HospitalHamilton Psychiatric HospitalUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuropsychiatryPsychiatryForensic psychiatryPsychologyWechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleForensic scienceMedicineCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to examine the WAIS-III General Ability Index (GAI) in a sample of 33 neuropsychiatry inpatients and 47 forensic psychiatry inpatients. The GAI is comprised of the six subtests that form the Verbal Comprehension and the Perceptual Organization Indexes. The GAI, although highly correlated with the FSIQ, was on average 5.3 points higher in the neuropsychiatry sample and 4.2 points higher in the forensic psychiatry sample. The GAI was significantly higher than the Working Memory and the Processing Speed Indexes in both groups. The GAI, a composite measure of verbal and nonverbal intellect, appears to be an appropriate measure for use in day-to-day clinical practice in neuropsychology. To facilitate clinical use, statistically reliable difference scores between the GAI and the WMI and PSI, for the 95% confidence interval, are presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Clinical NeuropsychologySame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207