Virtual Testing of Seniors: The Feasibility of Research with Online Neuropsychological Tests (FRONT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Synergic@Home is a feasibility study evaluating the effects of exercise and cognitive interventions for the prevention of dementia in at-risk individuals over age 60. The COVID-19 pandemic changed the study’s methods, with standardized neuropsychological tests needing to be administered virtually. Experience and research into the viability of neuropsychological assessments administered virtually is limited. After receiving permission to adapt the tests for virtual administration, a neuropsychologist, project managers, and research coordinators developed their approach. A PowerPoint presentation using text and visual stimuli from the tests was developed with on-screen instructions for the raters. An iterative development process involved feedback from the team in order to maximize the fidelity of these methods compared to in-person administration. Mock assessments supervised by a neuropsychologist further refined the methods and confirmed rater adherence to standardized procedures. A secure videoconferencing platform meeting privacy requirements was used. Dual monitors for the raters provided instructions on one monitor while stimuli for the participant was on the second monitor. The participant could only see the stimuli. This method of administering neuropsychological assessment, the Feasibility of Research with Online Neuropsychological Testing (FRONT), is being used to evaluate older adult participants in Synergic@Home. Results from this feasibility study may set the stage for new research methodologies and/or clinical evaluations in the future. This project is funded by the New Brunswick Healthy Seniors Pilot Project and the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (with grants from Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, with additional funding partners).
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 | 0.095 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".