NORMATIVE DATA OF COGNITIVE ASSESSMENT BY AUDITORY P300 EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL, MONTREAL COGNITION ASSESSMENT AND CHOICE REACTION TIME AND ITS VARIATION WITH AGE AND GENDER IN UTTARAKHAND REGION OF INDIA.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Tests like auditory P300 event related potential, neuro-psychometric pen pencil Montreal Cognition Assessment Test (MOCA) and Choice reaction time have been used as indexes of cognitive function. Thus this study has been planned with the aim to evaluate cognitive ability of a normal adult to nd out normative data and its, variation with age and gender in Uttarakhand region of India. Materials and Method: This cross-sectional study was carried out in the department of Physiology of AIIMS, Rishikesh on 52 healthy with ages ranging from 20 to 40 years, equal number of male & female volunteers with the ability to understand test procedures. Following tests were performed in the given order for uniformity during 11-1 pm timing of a day: 1. Event Related Potential-P300 2. Neuro-psychometric assessment (Hindi Montreal Cognitive Assessment -HMOCA test) and 3. Choice Reaction Time. Results and Conclusion: Mean of P300 Latency is 310 ± 37.14 msec, mean of P300 Amplitude is 14 ± 7.5 uv (from Cz electrode site), mean of Montreal Score is 24.81±3.25, and mean of CRT is 584.5 ±84.06 ms in all the subjects. All the parameters are better in younger age group. All the parameters are better in male except MOCA score
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".