Relationship between the Brazilian version of the Montreal-Toulouse language assessment battery and education, age and reading and writing characteristics. A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: There is growing concern about understanding how sociodemographic variables may interfere with cognitive functioning, especially with regard to language. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between performance in the Brazilian version of the Montreal-Toulouse language assessment battery (MTL-BR) and education, age and frequency of reading and writing habits (FRWH).DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study conducted in university and work environments in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.METHOD: The MTL-BR was administered to a group of 233 healthy adults, aged 19 to 75 years (mean = 45.04, standard deviation, SD = 15.47), with at least five years of formal education (mean = 11.47, SD = 4.77).RESULTS: A stepwise multiple linear regression model showed that, for most tasks, the number of years of education, age and FRWH were better predictors of performance when analyzed together rather than separately. In separate analysis, education was the best predictor of performance in language tasks, especially those involving reading and writing abilities.CONCLUSION: The results suggested that the number of years of education, age and FRWH seem to influence performance in the MTL-BR, especially education. These data are important for making diagnoses of greater precision among patients suffering from brain injuries, with the aim of avoiding false positives.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Dataset About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Dataset About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
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 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".