Multivariate Base Rates of Low Neuropsychological Test Scores in Cognitively Intact Older Adults with Subjective Cognitive Decline from a Specialist Memory Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To avoid misdiagnosing mild cognitive impairment (MCI), knowledge of the multivariate base rates (MVBRs) of low scores on neuropsychological tests is crucial. Base rates have typically been determined from normative population samples, which may differ from clinically referred samples. The current study addresses this limitation by calculating the MVBR of low or high cognitive scores in older adults who presented to a memory clinic experiencing subjective cognitive decline but were not diagnosed with MCI. METHOD: We determined the MVBRs on the Kaplan-Baycrest Neurocognitive Assessment for 107 cognitively healthy older adults (M age = 75.81), by calculating the frequency of patients producing n scores below or above different cut-off values (i.e., 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 SD from the mean), stratifying by education and gender. RESULTS: Performing below or above cut-off was common, with more stringent cut-offs leading to lower base rates (≥1 low scores occurred in 84.1% of older adults at -1 SD, 55.1% at -1.5 SD, and 39.3% at -2 SD below the mean; ≥1 high scores occurred in 80.4% of older adults at +1 SD, 35.5% at +1.5 SD, and 16.8% at +2 SD above the mean). Higher education was associated with varying base rates. Overall, the MVBR of obtaining a low cognitive test score was higher in this clinic sample, compared with prior studies of normative samples. CONCLUSIONS: MVBRs for clinically referred older adults experiencing memory complaints provide a diagnostic benefit, helping to prevent attributing normal variability to cognitive impairment and limiting false positive diagnoses.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".