MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124010887 · doi:10.1080/02699050400005242

The Rey 15-item memory test for malingering: A meta-analysis

2004· review· en· W2124010887 on OpenAlexaff
Lawrie Reznek

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Injury · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalingeringTest (biology)False positive paradoxMemory testPsychologyMeta-analysisClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicineArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceCognitionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Rey 15-Item Memory Test (RMT) is frequently used to detect malingering. Many objections to the test have been raised. Nevertheless, the test is still widely used. OBJECTIVE: To provide a meta-analysis of the available studies using the RMT and provide an overall assessment of the sensitivity and specificity of the test, based on the cumulative data. RESULTS: The results show that, excluding patients with mental retardation, the RMT has a low sensitivity but an excellent specificity. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide the basis for the ongoing use of the test, given that it is acceptable to miss some cases of malingering with such a screening test, but one does not want to have many false positives.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.011
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations108
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain InjurySame topicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersFrench-language works237,207