Validation of NINDS-CSN neuropsychological battery for vascular cognitive impairment in Chinese stroke patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The NINDS-Canadian Stroke Network (NINDS-CSN) recommended a neuropsychological battery of three protocols to diagnose vascular cognitive impairment (VCI), however, due to culture and language differences, the battery cannot be directly used in China. Validation of the battery in mandarin Chinese is lacking. Our study investigated the reliability and validity of the adapted Chinese versions of the battery in stroke patients with high probability of VCI. METHODS: Fifty mild stroke patients (median of National Institute of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score, 2) and 50 stroke-free normal controls were recruited. All subjects' demographics, clinical history, and stroke severity were recorded. The NINDS-CSN neuropsychological protocols were adapted into the Chinese versions. External validity, defined as the ability of the protocol summary scores to differentiate stroke patients from controls, was determined using the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristics curve. We also evaluated internal consistency and intra-rater reliability. RESULTS: Stroke patients performed significantly poorer than controls on all three protocols (F statistics between 24.9 and 31.4, P < 0.001). External validity evaluated by AUCs was 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.95), 0.88 (95% CI, 0.81-0.94), and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.79-0.94) for the 60-min, 30-min and 5-min protocols, respectively. Cronbach's alpha of the cognitive tests was 0.87 for all subjects. Intra-rater reliability was acceptable with intraclass correlation coefficients 0.90, 0.83 and 0.75 for the 60-min, 30-min and 5-min protocols, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The adapted Chinese versions of three NINDS-CSN neuropsychological protocols were valid and reliable for assessing VCI in Chinese patients with mild stroke.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".