MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2622429320 · doi:10.1055/s-0043-103267

The Stroop-Interference-NoGo-Test (STING): A Fast Screening Tool for the Global Assessment of Neuropsychological Impairments

2017· article· en· W2622429320 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology International Open · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Functions and Memory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroop effectNeuropsychologyCognitionPsychologyMontreal Cognitive AssessmentReliability (semiconductor)AudiologyNeuropsychological assessmentTest (biology)Cognitive psychologyDiscriminative modelExecutive functionsClinical psychologyCognitive impairmentMedicineComputer sciencePsychiatryArtificial intelligencePower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background With the Stroop-Interference-NoGo-Test (STING), we introduce an efficient and sensitive screening tool for the assessment of mild to moderate cognitive impairment. Its development was motivated by the ongoing economization of diagnostics and therapy in clinics as well as by the increased recognition of the effects of cognitive impairments on quality of life and professional reintegration. Established screenings such as the MoCA, MMSE and CAMCOG are either more time-consuming or lack sensitivity with regard to mild to moderate impairments in relevant domains. Methods STING is based on the idea of an omnibus test. It integrates attentional, lexical-semantic, speed- and inhibitory components. In this way, a basic sensorimotor component is separated from a higher-order cognitive/executive component, which allows for differentiation between cognitive and generalised or merely sensorimotor impairments. The norms are based on data from 907 participants (386 M, 521 F). Its discriminative power was investigated in 64 patients (32 M, 32 F) with heterogeneous, but predominantly mild to moderate neuropsychological impairments. Results The split-half reliability is essentially r=0.82–0.95. For the parallel-test reliability, the index is r=0.82–0.91, whereas the test-retest stability is estimated somewhat lower (r=0.48–0.81). Practice effects are moderate (7–12%). STING is correlated with many familiar tests, but sets itself apart from mere intelligence testing. Within the age category of 12–34 years, the number of correct items in the more complex second half of the test was predictive for clinical caseness, with a sensitivity of 83% and a specificity of 47%. Between the ages of 35 and 64, the classification was improved by the combination with the ratio of both halves, which represents set-shifting costs. Here the sensitivity of 71% goes hand in hand with a specificity of 70%. Discussion STING provides a measure that can be considered sufficiently sensitive for use in the global assessment of cognitive impairment. A positive result does not replace a neuropsychological assessment, but indicates the need for one. The test offers an opportunity to neurologists, psychologists and psychiatrists to objectify mild to moderate, transient, or chronic functional impairments and to evaluate their course over time.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.354 · 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