MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4284892121 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2022.273

Three-month Practice Effect of the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery in Young Healthy Adults

2022· article· en· W4284892121 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Leah Kuzmuk, Alexander D. Rebchuk, Halina M. Deptuck, Molly Cairncross, Noah D. Silverberg, Thalia S. Field

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal HealthVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of AlbertaMcGill University
KeywordsCognitionCognitive Assessment SystemToolboxBattery (electricity)Affect (linguistics)GerontologyClinical PracticePsychologyMedicineCognitive testCognitive impairmentPhysical therapyPsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: The National Institutes of Health Toolbox-Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) is a tablet-based cognitive assessment intended for individuals with neurological diseases of all ages. NIHTB-CB practice effects (PEs), however, need clarification if this measure is used to track longitudinal change. We explored the test–retest PEs on NIHTB-CB performance at 3 months in young healthy adults (n = 22). We examined corrected T-scores normalized for demographic factors and calculated PEs using Cohen’s d. There were significant PEs for all NIHTB-CB composite scores and on 4/7 subtests. This work suggests the need to further assess NIHTB-CB PEs as this may affect the interpretation of study results incorporating this battery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→