C-TOC (Cognitive Testing on Computer)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cognitive Testing on Computer (C-TOC) is a novel computer-based test battery developed to improve both usability and validity in the computerized assessment of cognitive function in older adults. METHODS: C-TOC's usability was evaluated concurrently with its iterative development to version 4 in subjects with and without cognitive impairment, and health professional advisors representing different ethnocultural groups. C-TOC version 4 was then validated against neuropsychological tests (NPTs), and by comparing performance scores of subjects with normal cognition, Cognitive Impairment Not Dementia (CIND) and Alzheimer disease. C-TOC's language tests were validated in subjects with aphasic disorders. RESULTS: The most important usability issue that emerged from consultations with 27 older adults and with 8 cultural advisors was the test-takers' understanding of the task, particularly executive function tasks. User interface features did not pose significant problems. C-TOC version 4 tests correlated with comparator NPT (r=0.4 to 0.7). C-TOC test scores were normal (n=16)>CIND (n=16)>Alzheimer disease (n=6). All normal/CIND NPT performance differences were detected on C-TOC. Low computer knowledge adversely affected test performance, particularly in CIND. C-TOC detected impairments in aphasic disorders (n=11). DISCUSSION: In general, C-TOC had good validity in detecting cognitive impairment. Ensuring test-takers' understanding of the tasks, and considering their computer knowledge appear important steps towards C-TOC's implementation.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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 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".