Evidence of validity based on the relation to other variables and inter-rater reliability of the Cognitive Screening (TRIACOG) for adults with cerebrovascular diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents evidence of validity and reliability of the results obtained with the Cognitive Screening (TRIACOG) to evaluate post-stroke adults. The TRIACOG assesses orientation memory, language, arithmetic, praxis, information processing speed, and executive functions. A total of 126 post-stroke adults (M = 63.50; SD = 13.28 years old) and 126 neurologically healthy adults (M = 61.97; SD = 11.48 years old) participated in the study. Performance on the TRIACOG was positively correlated with scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Basic (MoCA-B), schooling, and reading and writing habits, and negatively correlated with the NIHSS and Rankin scales. Post-stroke adults scored lower and took longer to complete the instrument than neurologically healthy adults. Inter-rater agreement was achieved in scoring the TRIACOG. The TRIACOG presents evidence of validity based on its relationships to other variables (criterion and convergent) and on response processes, in addition to presenting reliability evidence established by inter-rater agreement. We expect that the TRIACOG will be employed by health workers in hospital settings, health units, and medical offices.
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 | 0.100 | 0.233 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".