MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378416939 · doi:10.3233/jad-221227

Composite Indices of the Color-Picture Version of Boston Naming Test Have Better Discriminatory Power: Reliability and Validity in a Chinese Sample with Diverse Neurodegenerative Diseases

2023· article· en· W4378416939 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Li, Yue-Yi Yu, Nan Hu, Min Zhang, Fangling Sun, Li Liu, Limei Fan, Shi-Shuang Ruan, Fen Wang, Pedro Rosa‐Neto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Alzheimer s Disease · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)PsychologyTest (biology)Sample (material)Power (physics)StatisticsClinical psychologyMathematicsBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Boston Naming Test (BNT) is the most widely used measure to assess anomia. However, it has been criticized for failing to differentiate the underlying cognitive process of anomia. OBJECTIVE: We validated the color-picture version of BNT (CP-BNT) in a sample with diverse neurodegenerative dementia diseases (NDDs). We also verified the differential ability of the composite indices of CP-BNT across NDDs groups. METHODS: The present study included Alzheimer's disease (n = 132), semantic variant primary progressive aphasia (svPPA, n = 53), non-svPPA (n = 33), posterior cortical atrophy (PCA, n = 35), and normal controls (n = 110). We evaluated psychometric properties of CP-BNT for the spontaneous naming (SN), the percentage of correct responses on semantic cuing and word recognition cuing (% SC, % WR). Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to examine the discriminatory power of SN alone and the composite indices (SN, % SC, and % WR). RESULTS: The CP-BNT had sufficient internal consistency, good convergent, divergent validity, and criterion validity. Different indices of CP-BNT demonstrated distinct cognitive underpinnings. Category fluency was the strongest predictor of SN (β= 0.46, p < 0.001). Auditory comprehension tests highly associated with % WR (Sentence comprehension: β= 0.22, p = 0.001; Word comprehension: β= 0.20, p = 0.001), whereas a lower visuospatial score predicted % SC (β= -0.2, p = 0.001). Composite indices had better predictability than the SN alone when differentiating between NDDs, especially for PCA versus non-svPPA (area under the curve increased from 63.9% to 81.2%). CONCLUSION: The CP-BNT is a highly linguistically relevant test with sufficient reliability and validity. Composite indices could provide more differential information beyond SN and should be used in clinical practice.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Alzheimer s DiseaseSame topicNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFrench-language works237,207