Performance of the NINDS-CSN 5-Minute Protocol in a National Population-Based Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2006, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke-Canadian Stroke Network (NINDS-CSN) Vascular Cognitive Impairment Harmonization Standards recommended a 5-Minute Protocol as a brief screening instrument for vascular cognitive impairment (VCI). We report demographically adjusted norms for the 5-Minute Protocol and its relation to other measures of cognitive function and cerebrovascular risk factors. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of 7199 stroke-free adults in the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study on the NINDS-CSN 5-Minute Protocol score. Total scores on the 5-Minute Protocol were inversely correlated with age and positively correlated with years of education, and performance on the Six-Item Screener, Word List Learning, and Animal Fluency (all p-values <.001). Higher cerebrovascular risk on the Framingham Stroke Risk Profile (FSRP) was associated with lower total 5-Minute Protocol scores (p <.001). The 5-Minute Protocol also differentiated between participants with and without confirmed stroke and with and without stroke symptom histories (p <.001). The NINDS-CSN 5-Minute Protocol is a brief, easily administered screening measure that is sensitive to cerebrovascular risk and offers a valid method of screening for cognitive impairment in populations at risk for VCI.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".