The Computerized Test of Information Processing (CTIP) Offers an Alternative to the PASAT for Assessing Cognitive Processing Speed in Individuals With Multiple Sclerosis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the ability of the Computerized Test of Information Processing (CTIP) to detect impaired cognitive processing speed in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) with a traditional 3.0 second Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT) and the Adjusting-PASAT which allows for calculation of a speed score. BACKGROUND: A primary cognitive deficit in MS is an impaired ability to process information quickly. Unfortunately, relatively few clinical tests effectively measure information processing speed. Of these, the PASAT is generally acknowledged to be the most sensitive, but use of this test is constrained by several factors. METHODS: All tests were administered to 30 adults with relapsing-remitting MS and 30 control participants. RESULTS: A series of analysis of variances revealed MS participants performed significantly worse than controls on the CTIP and the 3.0 second PASAT, whereas no significant difference was observed for the Adjusting-PASAT. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest the CTIP can detect deficits in the speed at which people with MS process information. Thus, the CTIP offers an alternative means to the 3.0 second PASAT included in the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite for assessing such impairment.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it