MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140780419 · doi:10.1016/j.acn.2006.04.003

A nonparametric study of the performance of cortical lesion patients on the Cognitive Assessment System

2006· article· en· W2140780419 on OpenAlexafffund
Simon M. McCrea

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Clinical Neuropsychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNeuropsychologyAudiologyLesionPsychologyAnalysis of varianceCognitionNeuropsychological assessmentDevelopmental psychologyMedicineNeuroscienceInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cortical lesion patients were tested on the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) in the post-acute phase (median > or = 1 month) to determine the degree of sensitivity and specificity of the CAS subtests to neuropsychological impairment. Nonparametric ANOVA and subsequent Mann-Whitney statistics were used. Demographic variables of age, education, handedness, sex were controlled for Matching Numbers was sensitive to right-hemisphere lesions while Verbal-Spatial Relations was sensitive to anterior lesions. Receptive Attention and Figure Memory were sensitive to posterior lesions. Number Detection was sensitive to right anterior lesions. Nonverbal Matrices was sensitive right anterior lesions and the inclusion of a disproportionate number of left-handers within this specific group appeared to be partly moderating this effect. The magnitudes of the performance decrement for these subtests were substantial with Figure Memory demonstrating the largest effect. The results suggest that select CAS subtests could be useful for the multiple baseline assessment of neuropsychological functioning.

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)0.009
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.369 · 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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Clinical NeuropsychologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207