P1‐585: CROSSTALK BETWEEN ENGLISH AND FRENCH FORMS OF THE RBANS IN AN ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE PREVENTION TRIAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical trials in populations at risk for cognitive disorders often use the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) to track cognitive changes over time. Participants from the INTREPAD trial (NCT#02702817) took either English or French version of the assessment. Due to concerns about equivalency of forms, we investigated whether alternate forms of the French version differed among Quebec-French speakers. We then developed adjustments for the French RBANS version in this population. In a randomized trial of preventive intervention (INTREPAD, NCT02702817; Breitner, 2016), we applied the RBANS norms for ages 60-69 to repeated cognitive measures, as we are interested in testing for within-person change over a 2-year period. We chose these norms to avoid “correcting” for age and because participants’ mean and median were in fact in the 60-69 age range (Table 1). We administered French RBANS form A at baseline and one of three alternate forms (B, C, D) 3 months later to 133 individuals (Table 2). We computed a linear mixed effect model using 2 time points and dummy variables for the alternate forms. We used bootstrapping because of the small sample size. The mean estimates resulting from these models were used to develop adjustment factors for the French RBANS forms. We then applied these models to adjusted data to verify the removal of form effect. We provide a set of basic suggestions for to reduce form specific effects in longitudinal analysis of the Canadian-French RBANS. Adjustment factors are provided for all 5 cognitive index sub-scores (Table 3). Inasmuch as we have observed significant form effects, we recommend evaluating translated cognitive batteries to ensure that the initial sessions are equivalent in cross-cultural studies. It is likely that longitudinal studies in other language/cultural groups could use this method to correct for test form differences, especially in designs that do not randomize alternate forms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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; 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".