The Testament Definition Scale (TDS): Normative Data from the Italian Population and Clinical Usability in Neurodegenerative Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ad-hoc forensic instruments have been developed for the contemporaneous or retrospective evaluation of testamentary capacity, among which the Testament Definition Scale (TDS), a short rating scale designed to evaluate and quantify the individual’s capacity to give an exhaustive definition of what a testament is. The aim of the study was to derive Italian normative values for the TDS in an adult sample and to provide preliminary evidence for its usability in neurological patients with cognitive decline. The TDS was administered to 341 healthy subjects of different ages (range= 30–92 years) and educational levels (range= 1–20 years), along with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB), and to 6 adults with neurodegenerative diseases. In healthy subjects, TDS scores were associated with MoCA and FAB scores; education was the only significant predictor of TDS scores. In patients with neurodegenerative diseases, TDS scores can dissociate from MoCA and FAB scores. Normative data (cutoff and equivalent scores) for favoring the adoption of the TDS in the assessment of testamentary capacity are here provided.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".