MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6921077735 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.9199604

Post-stroke cognition with the Oxford Cognitive Screen vs Montreal Cognitive Assessment: a multi-site randomized controlled study (OCS-CARE). Analysis code

2019· other· en· W6921077735 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2019
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionRandomized controlled trialStroke (engine)Outcome (game theory)Cognitive impairment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients &lt;2 months post-stroke were randomized to receive either the OCS and corresponding information leaflet or standard care with the MoCA at baseline. After 6 months, patients received both the OCS and MoCA. The primary registered outcome measures were the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) and change in stroke severity (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; NIHSS) at 6 months. The secondary outcome was change in cognitive performance from baseline to 6-month follow-up. The relationship between scores from the two cognitive screens at follow-up was also explored. <br>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1220.018

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.281 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareFrench-language works237,207