Validity of an Internet version of the Multiple Sclerosis Neuropsychological Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neuropsychological batteries are long and require expertise to administer. For this reason, the Multiple Sclerosis Neuropsychological Questionnaire (MSNQ) was developed as it is quick and easy to complete. The informant version of the scale has proven to be a useful screen for cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis (MS). OBJECTIVE: The objective was to validate an Internet version of the MSNQ. METHODS: The following psychometric data were collected at home over the Internet in 82 MS patients: (a) patient self-report version MSNQ (P-MSNQ), (b) informant version MSNQ (I-MSNQ), and (c) Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). Thereafter patients underwent in-office testing with the Brief Repeatable Battery of Neuropsychological Tests (BRB-N). The sensitivity and specificity of the Internet MSNQ to detect cognitive impairment relative to the BRB-N was determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-five percent of the sample was cognitively impaired. The P-MSNQ was correlated with depression and two tests of the BRB-N. The I-MSNQ was correlated with depression and all five tests of the BRB-N. A cut-off score of 26 on the I-MSNQ gave a sensitivity and specificity of 72% and 60% respectively. Test-retest and internal reliability analyses were strong for both the P-MSNQ and I-MSNQ. CONCLUSION: This is the first attempt at an Internet validation of the MSNQ. The modest sensitivity and specificity values suggest that further research is needed before either the patient or informant version of the MSNQ can be used for neuropsychological screening purposes over the Internet.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".