Data from: Validation of NINDS-VCI neuropsychology protocols for vascular cognitive impairment in Taiwan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To validate the three time-difference neuropsychological protocols developed by the National Institute of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and the Canadian Stroke Network for assessment of vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) in Mandarin-speaking subjects and to investigate the clinical application of the shortest form. Methods: Patients aged 50 years or older who had a stroke were invited to participate in the study. Clinical diagnosis of VCI was made. The NINDS-VCI Neuropsychology Protocols, 60-, 30-, and two 5-minute protocols, were administered. The criteria validities of the cognitive protocols against the diagnoses of stroke and VCI were determined via Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis. The optimal cut-off point for the 5-minute protocols total score was estimated for clinical use in screening. Results: Eighty-three patients and 53 controls were recruited during the study period. Patients with stroke performed more poorly than the control group in the three neuropsychological protocols. Forty-two patients with stroke were diagnosed with VCI. VCI was used as the standard to estimate the criteria validities. The area under the ROC curve was 0.78, 0.80, 0.75, and 0.73 for the 60-, 30-, 5-mintue protocol-A and 5-minute protocol-B, respectively. Conclusion: These modified neuropsychological protocols can be used as valid instruments when performing comprehensive cognitive assessment or for screening of VCI in Taiwan.
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 | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".