Comparison of EXIT-25 and the Frontal Assessment Battery for Evaluation of Executive Dysfunction in Patients Attending a Memory Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) and the EXIT-25 have emerged as 2 widely used screening instruments for executive dysfunction, but their screening properties have not been evaluated in a head-to-head comparison. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of 92 individuals presenting for cognitive assessment at a community hospital. RESULTS: The EXIT-25 took longer than the FAB to complete (mean difference = 9.27 min, 95% CI: 9.86-8.68). EXIT-25 and FAB scores showed significant correlation (Spearman's r = -0.79, p < 0.001) with one another, and each showed acceptable convergent validity and divergent validity. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 tests provide similar information about the presence of executive dysfunction. The FAB takes less time to complete, and appears to be less frustrating for patients, making it more feasible as a screening test for executive dysfunction in a memory clinic setting.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".