Selecting the Appropriate Memory Test for Patients with Stroke: Criterion Validity of the Buschke Selective Reminding Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate assessment of memory following a stroke is important for patient rehabilitation. The Buschke Selective Reminding Test (SRT) is a test of verbal learning and memory that can be used to assess many clinical populations. The current study investigated the criterion validity of the SRT by comparing scores from patients with stroke to healthy controls, and identified scores on the SRT that best differentiate between these two groups. Participants included 65 patients with stroke and 65 age-and education-matched healthy controls. The control group differed significantly from patients with stroke on all scores (p <.01). Spearman’s rho correlations revealed potential multicollinearity between multiple SRT measures. Binomial logistic regression suggested SRT scores differentiated patients with stroke from controls, and correctly classified 76% of cases. Lower continuous long-term retrieval (CLTR) scores were more likely among patients with stroke. Results supported the SRT as useful for identifying verbal learning and memory impairment in acute stroke inpatients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".