MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2468299678 · doi:10.12968/ijtr.2016.23.7.314

The Northwick Park Examination of Cognition: A brief cognitive assessment tool for use in acute stroke services

2016· article· en· W2468299678 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul M. Williams, Caroline Johnson, Sarah Swan, Caroline Barber, Patrick Murphy, Joseph E. Devine, Raj Bathula, David Cohen, Sebastian J. Crutch

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroke (engine)CognitionDementiaMedicineRehabilitationCognitive Assessment SystemCognitive impairmentAudiologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMontreal Cognitive AssessmentVerbal memoryPhysical therapyPsychologyInternal medicinePsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Aims: Assessment of cognitive impairment following stroke forms an important part of diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation planning. However, none of the available and widely used tools were developed specifically for use in stroke services. Most screening tools were developed for dementia, and consequently are biased toward an evaluation of memory function, provide inadequate assessment of executive function and are mainly verbally administered, limiting their utility in aphasic patients. Methods: One hundred and sixty-six stroke patients admitted to a hyper acute stroke unit and a control sample of 100 healthy participants completed the Northwick Park Examination of Cognition (NPEC). The NPEC includes 22 sub-tests in the domains of reasoning, episodic memory, language, perception and attention/executive function. Multiple input (verbal, visual) and output (spoken, written, gesture) modalities increase accessibility to patients with various deficits/lesion locations. Findings: Mean time from stroke to assessment was 5.6 days (SD=7.9). Seventy five percent of patients gained impaired scores (mild, moderate or severe impairment), which was evident at the group level on all subtests. Left and right cortical stroke patients differed significantly (P<0.05) on specific verbal (R>L) and spatial attention (L>R) subtests. Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of cognitive impairment (sensitivity=0.90; specificity=0.80; area-under-curve [AUC]=0.93) were equivalent or superior to data reported for established cognitive screening tools (AUC=0.53–0.89). Patients were disproportionately impaired on high vs low attentional demand cancellation tasks (P<0.0001). Conclusions: The NPEC is brief, freely available and has good sensitivity and specificity for differentiating stroke patients from controls in terms of cognitive functioning. The inclusion of timed executive function measures and comparable verbal and non-verbal sub-tests permits characterisation of cognitive dysfunction in different stroke subtypes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Therapy and RehabilitationSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207