Validation of the UK English Oxford cognitive screen-plus in sub-acute and chronic stroke survivors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Stroke survivors are routinely screened for cognitive impairment with tools that often fail to detect subtle impairments. The Oxford Cognitive Screen-Plus (OCS-Plus) is a brief tablet-based screen designed to detect subtle post-stroke cognitive impairments. We examined its psychometric properties in two UK English-speaking stroke cohorts (subacute: <3 months post-stroke, chronic: >6 months post-stroke) cross-sectionally. Patients and methods: This study included 347 stroke survivors (mean age = 73 years; mean education = 13 years; 43.06% female; 74.42% ischaemic stroke). The OCS-Plus was completed by 181 sub-acute stroke survivors and 166 chronic stroke survivors. All participants also completed the Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS) and a subset completed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and further neuropsychological tests. Results: < 0.19). Third, we report the sensitivity and specificity of each OCS-Plus subtask compared to neuropsychological test performance. Fourth, we found that OCS-Plus detected cognitive impairments in a large proportion of those classed as unimpaired on MoCA (100%) and OCS (98.50%). Discussion and conclusion: The OCS-Plus provides a valid screening tool for sensitive detection of subtle cognitive impairment in stroke patients. Indeed, the OCS-Plus detected subtle cognitive impairment at a similar level to validated neuropsychological assessments and exceeded detection of cognitive impairment compared to standard clinical screening tools.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it