P1‐473: CROSS‐CULTURAL APPLICABILITY OF THE REPEATABLE BATTERY FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL STATUS (RBANS) IN COGNITIVELY NORMAL SUBJECTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally conducted Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials depend upon neurocognitive performance measures free from cultural bias. The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) is an instrument that has been translated into over 40 languages, and has been used as both an inclusion measure in clinical trials of early symptomatic AD as well as an endpoint in secondary prevention trials for AD. To determine whether any systematic differences on the RBANS exists due to cultural/linguistic, the present study explored RBANS domain and total index scores in cognitively normal individuals enrolled in AD prevention trials. Aggregated screening/baseline data from four ongoing global multisite trials of individuals enrolled in AD secondary prevention trials were examined, including RBANS data from 16 countries (18 different language forms) at screening or baseline visits (N=8525). All subjects were determined to be cognitively intact at the time of RBANS testing. Index score scaling was done based upon the standard North American normative data. There were some minor geographical variations in terms of RBANS total scale score, but this did not appear to be due to any specific cultural/linguistic factors, as there were no meaningful differences in domain-based index score profiles. Index score profiles were normally distributed across countries. The minor overall performance differences across geographic area might be attributable to differences in educational systems, recruiting practices, or a combination thereof. The fact that there was no difference in the domain-based index score profile across countries suggests that there is no systematic cultural/linguistic bias in the existing translations that would require adjustments.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".