F050 Comparing the one touch stockings of cambridge and Zindametrix’s Tower-Z as components of the HD-CAB in SHIELD-HD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Cognitive decline is a feature of HD. The Huntington’s Disease Cognitive Assessment Battery (HD-CAB) was developed as a fit-for-purpose cognitive assessment battery for HD clinical trials. The HD-CAB consists of six cognitive assessments: the Symbol Digit Modalities Test, Trail Making Test B, Emotion Recognition, Paced Tapping, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised, and One Touch Stockings of Cambridge (OTS). In 2021, the HD-CAB version of the OTS was discontinued. Therefore, Zindametrix developed the Tower-Z task (TZ) as a potential replacement for the OTS. The OTS and TZ tests were included in Triplet Therapeutic’s longitudinal, observational study, SHIELD-HD. Aim The purpose of this poster is to describe the analyses we intend to conduct to determine if the TZ test is a psychometrically sound replacement for the OTS in the HD-CAB. Methods 52 participants in SHIELD-HD completed the OTS and TZ at weeks 96 and 120. 10 participants completed the tasks at both time points and 42 participants completed the tasks at one of the two time points. Proposed Analyses Using the data from these participants, we intend to assess the (a) relationship between the two tests using the test-retest reliability of the OTS as the context for the interpretation of those estimates, (b) patterns of relationships the OTS and TZ shared with other tests in the HD-CAB, and (c) the comparability of HD-CAB overall composite scores when either the OTS or TZ are used in the calculation of the composite. Conclusion Through the proposed analyses we intend to evaluate the comparability of the TZ and OTS.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".