MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013338650 · doi:10.1097/wad.0000000000000376

Factor Consistency of Neuropsychological Test Battery Versions in the NACC Uniform Data Set

2020· article· en· W3013338650 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica E. Culhane, Kwun Chuen Gary Chan, Merilee Teylan, Yen‐Chi Chen, Charles Mock, Kathryn Gauthreaux, Walter A. Kukull

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsNeuropsychologyNeuropsychological testSet (abstract data type)Consistency (knowledge bases)Test (biology)PsychologyCognitionClinical psychologyCognitive psychologyComputer sciencePsychiatryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The proprietary neuropsychological tests (Form C1) of the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) Uniform Data Set were replaced with nonproprietary versions (Form C2) chosen to closely model their proprietary counterparts. Correlations between analogous test pairs as measured in previous work were good (0.68-0.78), but it is unclear whether the paired tests represent the same set of common factors of cognition or if important factors specific to C1 or C2 only exist. The authors performed multiple factor analysis to analyze correlated C1 and C2 data. They included participants who completed both neuropsychological batteries within 1 year with no change in cognitive status. They found that the C1 and C2 neuropsychological test pairs are strongly related and are represented by the same principal factors. These findings support the use of the C2 test results in conjunction with C1 in longitudinal analyses of NACC data.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.872

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer Disease & Associated DisordersSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207