A comparison of methods for measuring cognitive change in older adults
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
Well-researched statistical methods are required to guide clinicians in determining the significance of test score changes in serial neuropsychological assessment of older adults. The following six change score methods were examined using five-year test-retest data from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging: the standard deviation method, three reliable change indices (RCIs), and two standardized regression-based methods. Changes in scores on four memory measures were examined in cognitively healthy older adults, and the RCI with a correction for practice/aging effects most accurately classified this normal variability. Diagnostic change (i.e., developing dementia versus remaining cognitive healthy) was also examined in relation to memory test score changes. All change score methods were significantly associated with diagnostic change, though the strength of association varied by measure and method. In contrast to some previous research, RCIs were found to be useful when making diagnostic discriminations in older adults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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