Validation of a brief telephone battery for neurocognitive assessment of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effects of pulmonary arterial hypertension on brain function are not understood, despite patients' frequent complaints of cognitive difficulties. Using clinical instruments normally administered during standard in-person assessment of neurocognitive function in adults, we assembled a battery of tests designed for administration over the telephone. The purpose was to improve patient participation, facilitate repeated test administration, and reduce the cost of research on the neuropsychological consequences of acute and chronic cardiorespiratory diseases. We undertook this study to validate telephone administration of the tests. METHODS: 23 adults with pulmonary arterial hypertension underwent neurocognitive assessment using both standard in-person and telephone test administration, and the results of the two methods compared using interclass correlations. RESULTS: For most of the tests in the battery, scores from the telephone assessment correlated strongly with those obtained by in-person administration of the same tests. Interclass correlations between 0.5 and 0.8 were observed for tests that assessed attention, memory, concentration/working memory, reasoning, and language/crystallized intelligence (p < or = 0.05 for each). Interclass correlations for the Hayling Sentence Completion test of executive function approached significance (p = 0.09). All telephone tests were completed within one hour. CONCLUSION: Administration of this neurocognitive test battery by telephone should facilitate assessment of neuropsychological deficits among patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension living across broad geographical areas, and may be useful for monitoring changes in neurocognitive function in response to PAH-specific therapy or disease progression.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".