MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cog-First: standardization of a tablet-based self-administered cognitive screening

2025· article· en· W4409282128 on OpenAlexaff
Camille Heslot, Marion Houot, Valentine Facque, Franck Tarpin-Bernard, Mélissa Jeulin, Romain Capron, Rajiv Reebye, Emmanuel Mandonnet

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsCanarieUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStandardizationCogCognitionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyPsychiatryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Acquired brain injury can lead to subtle cognitive disorders that can be challenging to detect albeit impacting patients' long-term functional prognosis. Cog-First has been developed as a tablet-based self-administered cognitive screening tool to assess executive function, memory and attention in approximately 20 minutes, in the acute phase following brain injury. AIM: The aim of this study was to establish reliable normative data for Cog-First to enable meaningful comparisons between patients and a reference population. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: This study was conducted at the PRISME platform of Paris Brain Institute. POPULATION: Four hundred and six healthy French-speaking healthy volunteers were randomly selected from the Paris Brain Institute's database. METHODS: Each participant underwent the Cog-First assessment, which comprises seven subtests, in standardized conditions. Ninety-five participants performed the alternative version one month later to assess the test-retest effect. The effects of gender, age, years of education and test version, as well as their two-way interactions, were evaluated by generalized linear models (GLMs). Formulas from the GLMS were extracted to calculate a corrected score that removes the effects of age, sex, version and years of education. This enables us to derive percentiles in a population of healthy volunteers, allowing the development of the standardization process. RESULTS: The results revealed a significant influence of gender, age, level of education and version on several sub-scores. Based on these results, the standardization process was implemented by calculating the percentiles on the corrected scores in the population of healthy volunteers. Test-retest analyses indicated a learning effect on four out of seven subtests. CONCLUSIONS: The standardization of Cog-First resulted in the development of score formulas adjusted for gender, age, education and version, integrated within the software for automated scoring. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: This study establishes reliable norms for Cog-First, enabling meaningful score interpretation and clinical use, thereby facilitating early detection of cognitive impairments and potentially improving patient outcomes. Further research is necessary to determine the tool's applicability and sensitivity in brain-injured patients.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation MedicineSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207