MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004074815 · doi:10.1207/s15324826an0702_6

Short-Form Prediction of WAIS-R Scores in a Sample of Individuals Diagnosed With Multiple Sclerosis

2000· article· en· W2004074815 on OpenAlexaff
Paul D. Mendella, Lorraine McFadden, Joe Regan, Lisa Medlock

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Neuropsychology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWechsler Adult Intelligence ScalePsychologyContext (archaeology)Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of IntelligenceShort FormsClinical psychologyIntelligence quotientAudiologyDevelopmental psychologyWechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenCognitionPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A short form of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale--Revised (WAIS-R) developed by Ward (WAIS-R/7 SF; 1990) was used to generate Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale IQ scores (VIQ, PIQ, and FSIQ, respectively) in 66 individuals diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS). Short-form scores were highly correlated with WAIS-R scores. However, the short-form VIQ and PIQ, but not FSIQ, scores differed significantly from corresponding WAIS-R scores. WAIS-R/7 SF VIQ, PIQ, and FSIQ scores fell within 5, 9, and 6 absolute error points, respectively, of corresponding WAIS-R IQ scores in 95% of cases. Classification of IQ scores into ranges (e.g., average, high average, etc.) based on the scheme outlined by Wechsler (1981) was consistent between WAIS-R/7 SF and WAIS-R scores in 81.8% (for VIQ), 74.8% (for PIQ), and 89.4% (for FSIQ) of cases. These findings are discussed within the context of using the WAIS-R/7 SF in the assessment of MS patients.

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)0.010
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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied NeuropsychologySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207