Examining the role of repeated test exposure over 12 months across ADNI protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective : Changes to study protocols during longitudinal research may alter cognitive testing schedules over time. Unlike in prior Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) protocols, where testing occurred twice annually, participants enrolled in the ADNI‐3 are no longer exposed to cognitive materials at 6 months. This may affect their 12‐month performance relative to earlier ADNI cohorts, and potentially confounds data harmonization attempts between earlier and later ADNI protocols. Method : Using data from participants enrolled across multiple ADNI protocols, this study investigated whether test exposure during 6‐month cognitive evaluation influenced scores on subsequent 12‐month evaluation. Results : No interaction effects were observed between test exposure group and time at 12 months on cognitive performance. No improvements, and limited declines, were seen between baseline and 12‐month follow‐up scores on most measures. Conclusions : The 6‐month testing session had minimal impact on 12‐month performance in ADNI. Collapsing longitudinal data across ADNI protocols in future research appears appropriate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".