MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209307396 · doi:10.1016/j.rehab.2021.101594

Cognitive assessment scale for stroke patients (CASP): A multicentric validation study

2021· article· en· W3209307396 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCASPStroke (engine)CognitionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyNeuropsychologyMinimal clinically important differenceConvergent validityPhysical therapyPsychometricsMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineInternal consistency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Mini Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment are commonly used as short screening batteries for assessing cognitive impairment after stroke. However, aphasia or hemispatial neglect may interfere with the results. For this reason, we developed the Cognitive Assessment scale for Stroke Patients (CASP), which takes these conditions into consideration and previously demonstrated its superiority over these scales in terms of feasibility. OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to verify the psychometric properties of the (original) French version of the CASP. METHODS: We included 201 patients with a recent first hemispheric stroke and 50 controls. Stroke patients were examined 4 times (visit 1 [V1] to visit 4 [V4]) in the subacute post-stroke phase. The structural validity of the CASP was studied by principal factorial analysis, convergent validity by comparison with several variables including a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment, divergent validity by comparison with the total score between stroke patients and controls, and sub-scores between right and left stroke. Internal consistency, reproducibility and sensitivity to change were assessed. We propose the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) value and a pathological threshold as well as a threshold to predict cognitive change between V1 and V4. RESULTS: Of the 201 participants included (63% male; mean [SD] age 63 [13] years), CASP data were available for 199/150/133/93 at V1/V2/V3/V4, respectively. CASP has a one-dimensional structure. The hypotheses of convergent/divergent validities were confirmed. Internal consistency was good and reliability excellent. Responsiveness was small to moderate, but the MCID could still be estimated. We discuss the choice of a pathological threshold and a predictive threshold of V1 over V4. CONCLUSIONS: CASP has good psychometric properties for screening cognitive impairment in the subacute post-stroke phase, which is consistent with its Italian and Korean versions. It can be used for patients with severe motor aphasia or left hemispatial neglect but not in case of severe oral comprehension or visual impairment.

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.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.335 · 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