P.003 Feasibility and validity of a novel video-conference administration protocol for the NIH toolbox - cognition battery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The NIH Toolbox - Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) is a computerized cognitive assessment designed for clinical research that is administered in-person. Here, we explored the feasibility and validity of a novel video-conference protocol for administering the NIHTB-CB. Since our protocol required repeated assessments, we further explored the NIHTB-CB’s practice effect. Methods: Twenty-five healthy participants completed the NIHTB-CB under two separate conditions four weeks apart. The standard condition followed the recommended administration protocol, whereas the video-conference condition had the examiner and participant in separate rooms but able to communicate over video-conference. A linear mixed-model analysis was performed to explore the fixed effect of testing condition and time on NIHTB-CB performance. Results: Across all three NIHTB-CB composite scores (total, fluid and crystallized cognition) no significant fixed effect of administration condition was found. A significant practice effect was observed for the fluid and total cognition composite scores over a 29.0 (± 2.1) day test-retest interval. Conclusions: Our novel video-conference protocol for the NIHTB-CB is equivalent to the standard protocol in healthy participants, and may provide a solution for researchers seeking to engage study participants at remote sites. If the NIHTB-CB is used longitudinally to monitor patients, corrections for repeated measures may be required.
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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".