MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117351411 · doi:10.1093/arclin/acp074

High Specificity of the Medical Symptom Validity Test in Patients with Very Severe Memory Impairment

2009· article· en· W2117351411 on OpenAlexaff
Anuj Singhal, P. Green, K. Ashaye, Kuttalingam Shankar, Deepak Gill

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Clinical Neuropsychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Hospital Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMemory impairmentCognitive impairmentSevere dementiaTest (biology)AudiologyPsychologyCognitionMemory testClinical psychologyNonverbal communicationPsychiatryMedicineDevelopmental psychologyDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Failure on effort tests usually implies insufficient effort to produce valid cognitive test scores. However, many people with very severe cognitive impairment, such as dementia patients, will produce failing scores on nearly all effort tests. In such patients, effort tests have low specificity. The Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) and the nonverbal MSVT (NV-MSVT) were designed to address this problem. They produce profiles of scores across multiple subtests to facilitate discrimination between low scores from people trying to feign impairment and low scores attributable to severe impairment. To study the specificity of the MSVT and NV-MSVT in people with very severe memory impairment, we tested (a) 10 institutionalized patients with dementia and (b) 10 volunteers who were asked to simulate memory impairment. It was hypothesized that the "possible dementia profile" would be found significantly more often in the dementia patients than in the simulators. The MSVT and the NV-MSVT both displayed 100% specificity in the dementia group, while retaining a combined sensitivity of 80% to suboptimal effort in the simulator group.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations83
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Clinical NeuropsychologySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207