Frequency of Abnormal Scores on the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery Screening Module (S-NAB) in a Mixed Neurological Sample
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
The Neuropsychological Assessment Battery (NAB; Stern & White, 2003 Stern , R. A. , & White , T. ( 2003 ). Neuropsychological Assessment Battery . Lutz , FL : Psychological Assessment Battery . [Google Scholar]; White & Stern, 2003 White , T. , & Stern , R. A. ( 2003 ). Neuropsychological Assessment Battery: Psychometric and technical manual . Lutz , FL : Psychological Assessment Resources . [Google Scholar]) is a comprehensive, modular battery of tests comprised of the following six modules: (a) Screening, (b) Attention, (c) Language, (d) Memory, (e) Spatial, and (f) Executive Functions. The Screening Module is an abbreviated version of the full NAB. The purpose of this descriptive study was to present index and primary test score information for the Screening Module in a mixed sample of patients with known neurological conditions. Participants were 37 outpatients with clear evidence of neurological damage or disease. Performance decrements were found on the Attention Index, most notably on the Numbers and Letters tests. Decrements were also found on the Executive Functions Index, most notably on the Word Generation test. Somewhat surprisingly, patients performed well across most of the individual test scores. This mixed clinical sample showed less neuropsychological compromise than the clinical samples presented in the NAB manual.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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