MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039406369 · doi:10.1177/1533317506292576

The Kingston Standardized Behavioural Assessment

2006· article· en· W2039406369 on OpenAlexaff
Robert W. Hopkins, Lindy A. Kilik, Duncan J. A. Day, Lisa Bradford, Catherine P. Rows

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Alzheimer s Disease & Other Dementias® · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsDementiaNeuropsychologyVascular dementiaNeuropsychological assessmentIntervention (counseling)PsychologyMedicineClinical psychologyDiseasePsychiatryCognitionPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Kingston Standardized Behavioural Assessment (KSBA), a behavioral screening tool that assesses the behavioral changes associated with dementia, particularly Alzheimer's disease (AD), is introduced. Designed to be user friendly for clinicians not trained in specialized behavioral assessment techniques, it addresses some of the problems of existing scales. A group of patients diagnosed with probable AD, vascular dementia, or mixed (AD and vascular) was assessed using the KSBA. A subgroup was also given the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). Behavioral profiles and scores were obtained for all subjects. Factor analysis revealed 2 factors described as neuropsychiatric and neuropsychological. The KSBA efficiently collects neuropsychological and neuropsychiatric behavioral symptoms of dementia, is easy to score and interpret, and yields a behavioral profile that helps identify target behaviors for intervention. It can be used to facilitate clinical decision making around level of care and can be easily incorporated into clinically based research.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.006

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations12
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Alzheimer s Disease & Other Dementias®Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207