Revue systématique des tests neuropsychologiques validés ou standardisés dans la population canadienne francophone âgée
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il est essentiel d’utiliser des tests neuropsychologiques ayant été validés et normés auprès de la population cible, puisque les réalités culturelles et linguistiques différentes entre la population de validation/normalisation et la population cible peuvent affecter les résultats. Cette revue systématique vise à recenser et décrire les tests neuropsychologiques validés et/ou standardisés sur la population âgée canadienne francophone. Au total, 43 articles ont été sélectionnés. Cette revue recense 13 tests validés, 25 tests standardisés et 14 tests validés et standardisés, couvrant la majorité des domaines cognitifs (fonctions mnésiques, attentionnelles, exécutives, perceptivo-motrices et langagières), excepté la cognition sociale. La quasi-totalité des échantillons ont été recrutés au Québec. Les tests relevés présentent majoritairement des indices psychométriques satisfaisants et généralement des normes considérant l’âge, le sexe et l’éducation. Cette revue systématique permettra aux cliniciens et chercheurs canadiens en vieillissement d’orienter optimalement leurs choix de tests neuropsychologiques.
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 | 0.046 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".