The Repeatable Battery for The Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS): Clinical Utility in a Traumatic Brain Injury Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS; Randolph, 1998 Randolph , C. ( 1998 ). Repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status (RBANS) . San Antonio , TX : Psychological Corporation . [Google Scholar]), a neuropsychological screening measure initially designed to assess the cognitive deficits associated with dementia, has since been clinically implemented with other neurological populations including traumatic brain injury (TBI). This study evaluated the clinical utility of the RBANS in a TBI population by comparing the profiles of 51 TBI cases and 34 non-head-injured controls. Across RBANS' Index Scores, the TBI group performed at a significantly lower level than the controls; sensitivity to TBI and likelihood ratios ranged from modest to strong; and specificity was high. Particularly efficacious was the clinical efficiency exhibited by the Total Scale Index (summary score) of the RBANS.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".