A Teleneuropsychological Battery for Assessing Older Panamanian Adults: Protocol for a Cross-Sectional Pilot Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence has shown that teleneuropsychology is a crucial tool in the assessment and treatment of individuals with limited access to in-person health services. Nevertheless, studies in Latin America are scarce, and there is a pressing need for studies that test the feasibility of teleneuropsychology and contribute to the development and validation of tools and models, as well as the establishment of normative data for the diverse populations of the region. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to conduct the first pilot study in Central America to assess the feasibility of a teleneuropsychology protocol and to generate normative data for a Panamanian sample. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, descriptive, community-based study derived from the Development and Validation of Teleneuropsychology Normative Data for Older Adults in Florida (FLOAT) study. The study's final sample will include 150 participants (aged ≥50 years). Participants will undergo initial screening to determine their eligibility and will be included if they have a basic understanding of and access to technological devices such as telephones, tablets, or computers; are free of cognitive impairment or serious health conditions; and provide informed consent. Participants will complete 2 questionnaires to determine if they can continue in the study. Participants who are eligible will be assessed with a teleneuropsychology cognitive battery and will answer questionnaires via a REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) link. RESULTS: Feasibility will be assessed based on an analysis of the tools, funding, expertise, and resources needed to conduct neuropsychological assessments. So far, the study has proven feasible as researchers have been able to obtain a REDCap license and all other material necessary to carry out assessments. As of November 11, 2024, a total of 67 participants aged ≥50 (mean 62.2, SD 7.6) years had been assessed with questionnaires and a complete cognitive test battery. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics show that participants on average had 16.7 (SD 1.9) years of formal education. A satisfaction questionnaire revealed that most participants were satisfied (22/67, 33%) or very satisfied (39/67, 58%) with the teleneuropsychological assessment, and most participants (58/67, 86%) would recommend this study to others. We expect to assess a similar number of women and men as well as different age groups with the teleneuropsychology battery. We plan to generate normative data for Panamanian adults aged >50 years. CONCLUSIONS: This study may point to the need to use assessment methods that are convenient and efficient for older adult populations and that can be used as substitutes for in-person evaluations. Although it is a viable approach, expanding the sample size is essential to generate reliable normative data. This is an unprecedented area of research in the country and the Central American region. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/68520.
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 | 0.031 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.008 |
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".