The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 17 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Cognition assessment using the NIH Toolbox
Open accessAbstract
Cognition is 1 of 4 domains measured by the NIH Toolbox for the Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function (NIH-TB), and complements modules testing motor function, sensation, and emotion. On the basis of expert panels, the cognition subdomains identified as most important for health, success in school and work, and independence in daily functioning were Executive Function, Episodic Memory, Language, Processing Speed, Working Memory, and Attention. Seven measures were designed to tap constructs within these subdomains. The instruments were validated in English, in a sample of 476 participants ranging in age from 3 to 85 years, with representation from both sexes, 3 racial/ethnic categories, and 3 levels of education. This report describes the development of the Cognition Battery and presents results on test-retest reliability, age effects on performance, and convergent and discriminant construct validity. The NIH-TB Cognition Battery is intended to serve as a brief, convenient set of measures to supplement other outcome measures in epidemiologic and longitudinal research and clinical trials. With a computerized format and national standardization, this battery will provide a "common currency" among researchers for comparisons across a wide range of studies and populations.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery is a brief, computerized set of 7 measures covering 6 cognitive subdomains for ages 3–85, validated in 476 participants. It showed good-to-excellent test-retest reliability, expected age associations, and convergent/discriminant validity against gold-standard measures.
Key findings
- Test-retest reliability was strong: intraclass correlations for the entire sample ranged from 0.78 for the Picture Sequence Memory Test to 0.99 for the Oral Reading Recognition Test, with most other values above 0.90.
- Age associations were robust in children (ages 3–15; r = 0.58–0.87) and negative for most nonlanguage measures in adults (ages 20–85; r = −0.46 to −0.65); language measures showed little adult decline (Vocabulary r = 0.15; Reading r = −0.02).
- Convergent validity for ages 8–85 ranged from r = 0.48 to 0.93 (all p < 0.0001), while discriminant validity correlations ranged from r = 0.05 to 0.30.
- In children ages 3–6, all battery measures correlated with a general cognitive ability composite at r = 0.54 to 0.74.
Methods
- Subdomains were selected through expert surveys and panels (N = 102 experts); the battery includes Flanker, Dimensional Change Card Sort, List Sorting Working Memory, Picture Sequence Memory, Oral Reading Recognition, Picture Vocabulary, and Pattern Comparison Processing Speed tests.
- Validation sample: N = 476 community-dwelling participants ages 3–85, stratified by age, education, and race/ethnicity, recruited at Northwestern University and 5 additional sites; not all ages were sampled. One-third was randomly selected for retest 7–21 days later.
- Analyses included Pearson correlations between age and test performance separately for children and adults, intraclass correlations for test-retest reliability, and correlations with gold-standard measures for convergent and discriminant validity; for ages 3–6, only convergent validity with a general cognitive ability composite was assessed.
Limitations
- The paper states the battery was not developed as a clinical measure to screen for cognitive impairment or substitute for a full neuropsychological evaluation; future clinical-population studies are expected to provide additional validation.
- The paper states the validation sample was not population-based and participants tended to be highly educated, especially in the youngest and oldest groups; a more representative sampling strategy was used for the later NIH-TB norming study.
- The paper states gold-standard measures were scarce for ages 3–6, and no well-established measures were identified for attention, episodic memory, EF, and processing speed in that age group, so only convergent validity with general cognitive ability was measured.
- Evident from the text: age effects are cross-sectional correlations, so developmental and aging trajectories are inferred rather than directly observed longitudinally; test-retest reliability was assessed in only one-third of the sample.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
20 Own result · 10 Sources not found · 8 Own method · 5 Own interpretation · 5 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The nonlanguage subdomain tests in the battery, in contrast, conformed to the pattern expected with cognitive ability measures in that they peaked in early adulthood and then declined in later adulthood at different rates, depending on the measure.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Cross-sectional age differences in Cognition Battery performance reflect developmental or aging changes rather than cohort effects.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many (57%) also listed a “Global Score” as important.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The expert panel rankings and self-reported familiarity of experts provide a valid basis for identifying the most important cognitive subdomains for health, school/work success, and independence.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In children from 3 to 6 years of age, all NIH-TB Cognition Battery measures were significantly correlated (ranging from r 5 0.54 to r 5 0.74) with our measure of general cognitive ability (“g”), indicating that they are sensitive to a range of different cognitive ability levels within this age cohort.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the basis of expert panels, the cognition subdomains identified as most important for health, success in school and work, and independence in daily functioning were Executive Function, Episodic Memory, Language, Processing Speed, Working Memory, and Attention.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The expert panel rankings and self-reported familiarity of experts provide a valid basis for identifying the most important cognitive subdomains for health, school/work success, and independence.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With the exception of the language measures (Vocabulary and Reading, r 5 0.15 and 20.02, respectively), age and test scores (r 5 20.46 to 20.65) on the remaining NIH-TB Cognition Battery measures were negatively associated, with lower scores at higher age levels.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For all NIH-TB CB instruments, correlations for convergent validity measures ranged from r 5 0.48 to r 5 0.93 (all p , 0.0001), suggesting that the NIH-TB measures are tapping the desired constructs.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Not surprisingly, Reading showed an especially steep improvement from age 3 to the early school years, when both formal and informal educational experiences ideally promote such development.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Cross-sectional age differences in Cognition Battery performance reflect developmental or aging changes rather than cohort effects.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Reading and Vocabulary scores showed the expected associations with age, growing through adolescence and stabilizing in older adulthood.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Cross-sectional age differences in Cognition Battery performance reflect developmental or aging changes rather than cohort effects.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(B) Results for NIH Toolbox Reading and Vocabulary scores (reported as a”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Cross-sectional age differences in Cognition Battery performance reflect developmental or aging changes rather than cohort effects.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The correlations between the NIH-TB measures and general cognitive ability, our index of convergent validity in young children (ages 3-6 years), were high (0.54-0.74), possibly supporting such a notion.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 21
- Probably not a substantial claim. 12
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(A) NIH Toolbox Picture Sequence Memory Test scores show improvement into early adulthood and then decline from the 50s on.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Cross-sectional age differences in Cognition Battery performance reflect developmental or aging changes rather than cohort effects.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Language subdomain tests, as expected, are experience-based and peaked somewhat later than measures of other cognitive subdomains, and then remained relatively stable even into the ninth decade of life.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Cross-sectional age differences in Cognition Battery performance reflect developmental or aging changes rather than cohort effects.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Test-retest reliability was strong for the entire sample and separately for children (ages 3-15 years) and adults (ages 20-85 years; table 3).”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The gold standard tests are valid measures of the intended cognitive constructs.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“whereas Oral Reading Recognition showed a much sharper increase until early grade-school years (age 7-8) and then followed the same pattern of more gradual improvement and then stability in the older age groups (figure , B).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Intraclass correlation coefficients for the entire sample on the NIH Toolbox measures ranged from 0.78 for the Picture Sequence Memory Test to 0.99 on the Oral Reading Recognition Test, with most other values falling above 0.90.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All NIH-TB Cognition Battery measures showed robust associations between test performance and age in the child group (r 5 0.58-0.87),where scores improved with age.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the participants in this study (or their parents, in the case of children) tended to be rather highly educated, particularly in the youngest and oldest groups (see table 1).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Data are presented for 208 normal children (age 3-15 years) and 268 normal adults (age 20-85 years) on 3 important psychometric characteristics: test-retest reliability, sensitivity to cognitive growth during childhood and age-related decline during adulthood, and construct validity.”
plaincorrelationaln = 208 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, on the Picture Sequence Memory Test, performance improved during childhood and early adolescence, with gradual decline in scores across adult age ranges beginning in the 30s (figure , A).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 2 top-ranked subdomains were Executive Function (EF) (95%) and Episodic Memory (93%), followed by Language (55%), Processing Speed (52%), and Attention (50%).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The expert panel rankings and self-reported familiarity of experts provide a valid basis for identifying the most important cognitive subdomains for health, school/work success, and independence.
In the paper
“Language scores can predict occupational attainment and performance.29”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [29]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The instruments were validated in English, in a sample of 476 participants ranging in age from 3 to 85 years, with representation from both sexes, 3 racial/ethnic categories, and 3 levels of education.”
plainn = 476- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The validation sample of 476 community-dwelling individuals is adequate for drawing conclusions about the Cognition Battery's validity across the 3-85 age range.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Language subdomain tests, as expected, are experience-based and peaked somewhat later than measures of other cognitive subdomains, and then remained relatively stable even into the ninth decade of life.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Cross-sectional age differences in Cognition Battery performance reflect developmental or aging changes rather than cohort effects.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Cognition Battery has 7 computerized instruments that measure 6 ability subdomains important for cognitive health from the ages of 3 to 85 years.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One-third of the sample was randomly selected to repeat testing 7 to 21 days later to assess test-retest reliability.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“PS measures are among the most sensitive indicators of cerebral dysfunction, 41 and slowed PS has been demonstrated in traumatic brain injury, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson disease, symptomatic HIV, chronic fatigue syndrome, dementia, and schizophrenia.42”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [41]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [42]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The subject sample for this study deliberately emphasized representation of ethnic minorities (almost 50%) and the oldest and youngest groups (3-6 years and 65-85 years; together, 48%) to ensure that the tests would perform as needed in these important segments of the population.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The validation sample of 476 community-dwelling individuals is adequate for drawing conclusions about the Cognition Battery's validity across the 3-85 age range.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Vocabulary represents the lexical component of language and is highly associated with general measures of “crystallized intelligence,” or “g c ,” 33 overall cognitive functioning, and success in school and work.29,34”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [33]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [29]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [34]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“WM improves significantly as children develop and WM span is thought to double in capacity between the ages of 5 and 10. 20”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [20]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Age associations reflect the validity of the tests for measuring cognitive development during childhood and age-related cognitive decline during adulthood.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Cross-sectional age differences in test performance reflect developmental growth during childhood and aging-related decline during adulthood.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“EF is very vulnerable to aging, 4 and comparisons across the lifespan yield an inverted U-shaped pattern, with early age-related improvement followed by later age-related decline.5”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [4]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [5]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Gold standard measures were scarce for 3-to 6-year-olds, and we were unable to identify well-established measures to test convergent or discriminant validity in this age group for the measures of attention, episodic memory, EF, and PS.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“It is one of the first cognitive functions to show age-related decline and the most susceptible to developmental disorders, 25 brain trauma, and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer disease.26”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [25]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [26]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The NIH-TB Cognition Battery was not developed as a clinical measure to either screen for cognitive impairment or to substitute for a full, competent neuropsychological evaluation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The lack of such measures may reflect the fact that different subdomains of cognition become more differentiated with experience and development.55”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [55]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The sample (N 5 476) was based on a stratification plan to include adequate numbers of individuals within age bands, level of education, and racial/ethnic backgrounds.”
plainn = 476- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The validation sample of 476 community-dwelling individuals is adequate for drawing conclusions about the Cognition Battery's validity across the 3-85 age range.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Single-word reading recognition tasks are strong predictors of health and cognitive outcomes across the lifespan, and performance on these tasks is also an estimate of the quality of education, accounting for some of the racial/ethnic differences on neuropsychological test performance seen in older adults.31,32”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [31]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [32]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Based on factor-analytic work, there is an emerging consensus that EF can be divided into 3 partially independent subcomponents: set shifting, inhibitory control, and updating/working memory.6”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [6]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper relies on this without support.
The expert panel rankings and self-reported familiarity of experts provide a valid basis for identifying the most important cognitive subdomains for health, school/work success, and independence.
“On the basis of expert panels, the cognition subdomains identified as most important for health, success in school and work, and independence in daily functioning were Executive Function, Episodic Memory, Language, Processing Speed, Working Memory, and Attention.”
“Information was requested from experts (N 5 102) who reported sufficient familiarity with cognition to make recommendations for specific subdomains of importance.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Cross-sectional age differences in test performance reflect developmental growth during childhood and aging-related decline during adulthood.
“Age associations reflect the validity of the tests for measuring cognitive development during childhood and age-related cognitive decline during adulthood.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The gold standard measures used for convergent and discriminant validity are valid criterion measures of the intended constructs.
“Convergent validity was assessed by correlations between each NIH-TB measure and a well-established “gold standard” measure of the same construct; evidence of discriminant validity was assessed by correlations with gold standards of a different cognitive construct.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The validation sample of 476 community-dwelling individuals is adequate for drawing conclusions about the Cognition Battery's validity across the 3-85 age range.
“The sample (N 5 476) was based on a stratification plan to include adequate numbers of individuals within age bands, level of education, and racial/ethnic backgrounds.”
“The subject sample for this study deliberately emphasized representation of ethnic minorities (almost 50%) and the oldest and youngest groups (3-6 years and 65-85 years; together, 48%) to ensure that the tests would perform as needed in these important segments of the population.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Adequate test-retest reliability is essential for a cognitive battery intended for longitudinal studies.
“Adequate test-retest reliability was considered essential for the NIH-TB Cognition Battery, particularly because of its anticipated use in longitudinal studies.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Cross-sectional age differences in Cognition Battery performance reflect developmental or aging changes rather than cohort effects.
“We presented the relationship of Cognition Battery performance with age in cognitively normal children and adults.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The gold standard tests are valid measures of the intended cognitive constructs.
“The”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) measures attention, working memory, language, processing speed, and executive functioning.”
From NIH toolbox cognition tests following traumatic brain injury: Frequency of low scores. (2017) · cites this paper as Weintraub et al., 2013
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Age effects.
“Thus, on the Picture Sequence Memory Test, performance improved during childhood and early adolescence, with gradual decline in scores across adult age ranges beginning in the 30s (figure , A).”
§ Age effects.
“(A) NIH Toolbox Picture Sequence Memory Test scores show improvement into early adulthood and then decline from the 50s on.”
Citations
Cites
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 · Cited by 15,798
The attention system of the human brain
Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.ne.13.030190.000325 · Cited by 8,070
Variability in Early Communicative Development
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Bates, E., Thal, D. J., Pethick, S. J., Tomasello, M., Mervis, C. B., & Stiles, J. (1994) · Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development · doi:10.2307/1166093 · Cited by 2,790
A cortical network for directed attention and unilateral neglect
Mesulam, M. ‐. (1981) · Annals of Neurology · doi:10.1002/ana.410100402 · Cited by 2,498
The Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS): A method of assessing executive function in children
Zelazo, P. D. (2006) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/nprot.2006.46 · Cited by 1,579
Self-citationThe anatomy of language: contributions from functional neuroimaging
Price, C. J. (2000) · Journal of Anatomy · doi:10.1046/j.1469-7580.2000.19730335.x · Cited by 1,352
Development of attentional networks in childhood
Rueda, M. R., Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Halparin, J. D., Gruber, D. B., Lercari, L. P., & Posner, M. I. (2004) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2003.12.012 · Cited by 1,339
Diamond, A. (2002) · Principles of Frontal Lobe Function · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195134971.003.0029 · Cited by 1,248
General Mental Ability in the World of Work: Occupational Attainment and Job Performance.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (2004) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.162 · Cited by 1,238
Handbook of Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
(2008) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/7437.001.0001 · Cited by 1,191
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Daniels K, Toth J, Jacoby L. The aging of executive functions. In: , Bialystok E, Craik FIM, editors. Lifespan Cognition: Mechanisms of Change. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006:96–111.
- Gleason JB, Ratner NB, editors. The Development of Language, 7th ed. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon; 2009.
- DeLuca J, Kalmar JH. Information Processing Speed in Clinical Populations. London: Psychology Press; 2007.
- Wechsler D. WPPSI-III Wechsler Preschool Primary Scale of Intelligence, 3rd ed. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation; 2002.
- Zelazo PD Anderson JE Richler J Wallner-Allen K Beaumont JL Weintraub S. NIH Toolbox cognitive function battery (CFB): measuring executive function and attention. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev (in press).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 1,289
Chen, B. T., Sethi, S. K., Jin, T., Patel, S. K., Ye, N., Sun, C., Rockne, R. C., Haacke, E. M., Root, J. C., Saykin, A. J., et al. (2018) · Breast Cancer Research · doi:10.1186/s13058-018-0965-3 · Cited by 40
Variation of HbA1c affects cognition and white matter microstructure in healthy, young adults
Repple, J., Karliczek, G., Meinert, S., Förster, K., Grotegerd, D., Goltermann, J., Redlich, R., Arolt, V., Baune, B. T., Dannlowski, U., et al. (2019) · Molecular Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41380-019-0504-3 · Cited by 41
“Furthermore, as both the prevalence of metabolic syndrome [17] as well as the level of cognitive performance [18] is strongly”
BackgroundClark, D. J., Manini, T. M., Ferris, D. P., Hass, C. J., Brumback, B., Cruz‐Almeida, Y., Pahor, M., Reuter‐Lorenz, P. A., & Seidler, R. D. (2020) · Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2019.00358 · Cited by 40
T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 in people with and without neurologic symptoms of long COVIDPreprint
Visvabharathy, L., Hanson, B. A., Orban, Z. S., Lim, P. H., Palacio, N. M., Jimenez, M., Clark, J. R., Graham, E. L., Liotta, E. M., Tachas, G., et al. (2021) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2021.08.08.21261763 · Cited by 40
“NIH toolbox tests administered to assess cognitive function (19) in 102 Neuro-PASC patients also showed significantly lower T scores in the attention module, 103 indicative of cognitive dysfunction relative to a demographic-matched population (Fig.”
Oughli, H. A., Gebara, M. A., Ciarleglio, A., Lavretsky, H., Brown, P. J., Flint, A. J., Farber, N. B., Karp, J. F., Mulsant, B. H., Reynolds, C. F., et al. (2022) · American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.jagp.2022.11.013 · Cited by 40
Moore, B. F., Salmons, K., Hoyt, A. T., Swenson, K. S., Bates, E. A., Sauder, K. A., Shapiro, A. L. B., Wilkening, G. N., Kinney, G. L., Neophytou, A. M., et al. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20064880 · Cited by 39
Hanson, B. A., Visvabharathy, L., Orban, Z. S., Jimenez, M., Batra, A., Liotta, E. M., DeLisle, R. K., Klausner, J. D., Cohen, P., Padhye, A. S., et al. (2023) · Brain Behavior and Immunity · doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2023.08.022 · Cited by 40
Prenatal Exposure to Tobacco and Offspring Neurocognitive Development in the Healthy Start Study
Moore, B. F., Shapiro, A. L. B., Wilkening, G. N., Magzamen, S. L., Starling, A. P., Allshouse, W. B., Adgate, J. L., & Dabelea, D. (2019) · The Journal of Pediatrics · doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.10.056 · Cited by 45
Rieck, J. R., Baracchini, G., Nichol, D., Abdi, H., & Grady, C. L. (2021) · Neurobiology of Aging · doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2021.03.019 · Cited by 40
“In the NIH Toolbox Cogni- tive Battery, inhibition was measured with an arrow flanker task.”
MethodInfluentialKohrt, B. A., Rai, S., Vilakazi, K., Thapa, K., Bhardwaj, A., & van Heerden, A. (2019) · JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · doi:10.2196/12366 · Cited by 29
“The toolbox comprises a validated set of freely available measures that can be used to quickly (within 2 hours or fewer) assess cognitive, sensory, motor, and emotional function in a diverse range of contexts [7].”
Yu, D. J., Yu, A. P., Bernal, J. D. K., Fong, D., Chan, D. K. C., Cheng, C. P.-W., & Parco Ming-fai, S. I. U. (2022) · Frontiers in Physiology · doi:10.3389/fphys.2022.1021428 · Cited by 43
“A higher composite score indicates better objective cognitive performance (Akshoomoff et al., 2013; Weintraub et al., 2013; Heaton et al., 2014).”
BackgroundMild–moderate congenital hearing loss: secular trends in outcomes across four systems of detection
Carew, P., Mensah, F. K., Rance, G., et al. (2017) · Child Care Health and Development · doi:10.1111/cch.12477 · Cited by 38
The neurological and neuropsychological effects of child maltreatment
Cabrera, C. J., Torres, H., & Harcourt, S. (2020) · Aggression and Violent Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.avb.2020.101408 · Cited by 49
Brooks, H., Oughli, H. A., Kamel, L. Y., Subramanian, S., Morgan, G., Blumberger, D. M., Kloeckner, J., Kumar, S., Mulsant, B. H., Lenze, E. J., et al. (2021) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-021-01764-9 · Cited by 45
The Mobile Toolbox for monitoring cognitive function
Gershon, R. C., Sliwinski, M. J., Mangravite, L. M., King, J. W., Kaat, A. J., Weiner, M. W., & Rentz, D. M. (2022) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(22)00225-3 · Cited by 39
Self-citationStaffaroni, A. M., Tsoy, E., Taylor, J. C., Boxer, A. L., & Possin, K. L. (2020) · PubMed · Cited by 37
Nuechterlein, K. H., Nasrallah, H. A., & Velligan, D. I. (2024) · Schizophrenia Bulletin · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbae051 · Cited by 39
How measurement noise limits the accuracy of brain-behaviour predictions
Gell, M., Eickhoff, S. B., Omidvarnia, A., Küppers, V., Patil, K. R., Satterthwaite, T. D., Müller, V. I., & Langner, R. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-54022-6 · Cited by 89
“As many large neuroimaging datasets utilise similar measurement instruments (e.g. NIH Toolbox 50 ), low prediction accuracies observed in many recent reports may be partly driven by suboptimal reliability of prediction targets 7,25,51 – 55 .”
Trivedi, M. H., Fatt, C. C., Jha, M. K., Cooper, C. M., Trombello, J. M., Mason, B. L., Hughes, J. L., Gadad, B. S., Czysz, A. H., Toll, R. T., et al. (2019) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2019.12.004 · Cited by 36
Network connectivity predicts language processing in healthy adults
Tomasi, D. G., & Volkow, N. D. (2020) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.25042 · Cited by 37
“…whole-brain iFC and language skills we used the two language metrics obtained in the HCP sample, which corresponded to measures of vocabulary comprehension (picture vocabulary [PicVocab]), and reading recognition (oral reading recognition [ReadEng]) from the NIH toolbox (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
MethodMorris, A. S., Wakschlag, L. S., Krogh‐Jespersen, S., Fox, N. A., Planalp, B. M., Perlman, S. B., Shuffrey, L. C., Smith, B. A., Lorenzo, N. E., Amso, D., et al. (2020) · Adversity and Resilience Science · doi:10.1007/s42844-020-00025-3 · Cited by 37
Self-citationLetang, S. K., Lin, S. S. ‐., Parmelee, P. A., & McDonough, I. M. (2021) · Cognitive Research Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-021-00329-7 · Cited by 40
“The assessments were from the NIH Toolbox (Weintraub et al., 2013), and data were provided through the HCP dataset.”
MethodInfluentialRinne, G. R., Davis, E. P., Mahrer, N. E., Guardino, C. M., Charalel, J. M., Shalowitz, M. U., Ramey, S. L., & Schetter, C. D. (2022) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2022.04.116 · Cited by 44
Menken, M. S., Isaiah, A., Liang, H., Rivera, P. R., Cloak, C. C., Reeves, G. M., Lever, N. A., & Chang, L. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.925727 · Cited by 51
Visvabharathy, L., Hanson, B. A., Orban, Z. S., Lim, P. H., Palacio, N. M., Jimenez, M., Clark, J. R., Graham, E. L., Liotta, E. M., Tachas, G., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2023.1155770 · Cited by 36
“NIH toolbox tests objectively assessing cognitive function (20) also found Neuro-PASC patients to have significantly lower scores in the attention domain, indicating cognitive dysfunction relative to a demographic-matched U.”
BackgroundMethodSandroff, B. M., Hillman, C. H., Benedict, R. H. B., & Motl, R. W. (2015) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.11.008 · Cited by 38
A web-portal for interactive data exploration, visualization, and hypothesis testing
Bartsch, H., Thompson, W. K., Jernigan, T. L., & Dale, A. M. (2014) · Frontiers in Neuroinformatics · doi:10.3389/fninf.2014.00025 · Cited by 36
“Standardized tests to obtain these measurements are available (Wechsler, 2004; Weintraub et al., 2013) and can be used to obtain either raw or age-normalized scores.”
MethodSex differences in brain size and general intelligence ( g )
van der Linden, D., Dunkel, C. S., & Madison, G. (2017) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2017.04.007 · Cited by 36
Theory-Based Predictors of Mindfulness Meditation Mobile App Usage: A Survey and Cohort Study
Crandall, A., Cheung, A., Young, A. M., & Hooper, A. P. (2018) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/10794 · Cited by 36
“We controlled for participant gender (0=male; 1=female), age, employment status (0=not employed; 1=employed), and performance on the NIH-TB Picture Vocabulary Test [32] (age-standardized scores) to control for participant fluid intelligence (considered best practice when examining executive functioning [33]).”
InfluentialLeahy, A. A., Eather, N., Smith, J. J., Hillman, C. H., Morgan, P. J., Nilsson, M., Lonsdale, C., Plotnikoff, R. C., Noetel, M., Holliday, E. G., et al. (2019) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026029 · Cited by 39
Chen, B. T., Ye, N., Wong, C. W., Patel, S. K., Jin, T., Sun, C., Rockne, R. C., Kim, H., Root, J. C., Saykin, A. J., et al. (2019) · Journal of Geriatric Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.jgo.2019.09.016 · Cited by 39
Executive functioning and disinhibited eating in children and adolescents
Kelly, N. R., Jaramillo, M., Ramirez, S., Altman, D. R., Rubin, A., Yang, S. B., Courville, A. B., Shank, L. M., Byrne, M. E., LeMay‐Russell, S., et al. (2020) · Pediatric Obesity · doi:10.1111/ijpo.12614 · Cited by 36
“Working memory was assessed with the NIH Toolbox List Sorting Working Memory Test.47 For this 7-minute task, participants are placed at a computer and presented with a series of images, each for 2 seconds.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialNelson, L. D., Barber, J. K., Temkin, N. R., Dams-O’Connor, K., DIKMEN, S. S., Giacino, J. T., Kramer, M. D., Levin, H. S., McCrea, M., Whyte, J., et al. (2020) · Journal of Neurotrauma · doi:10.1089/neu.2020.7295 · Cited by 36
Self-citationIncreased Likelihood of Falling in Older Cannabis Users vs. Non-Users
Workman, C. D., Fietsam, A. C., Sosnoff, J. J., & Rudroff, T. (2021) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci11020134 · Cited by 37
“Subjects then completed Item 14 of the Berg Balance Scale (BBS-14), question 1 of the Activities Balance Confidence (ABC-1) scale, the 9-Hole Peg Test (9-HPT), the Deary–Liewald reaction time (RT) tasks (simple and choice RT) [29], the Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Test, static posturography, and a 30-m wal…”
MethodInfluentialWhat Children with Developmental Language Disorder Teach Us About Cross‐Situational Word Learning
McGregor, K. K., Smolak, E., Jones, M., Oleson, J., Eden, N. M., Arbisi‐Kelm, T., & Pomper, R. (2022) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.13094 · Cited by 42
Sperber, J. F., Hart, E. R., Troller‐Renfree, S. V., Watts, T. W., & Noble, K. G. (2022) · Infancy · doi:10.1111/infa.12511 · Cited by 44
Ranasinghe, P. H. K. I. S., & Mapa, M. S. T. (2024) · Exploration of Medicine · doi:10.37349/emed.2024.00256 · Cited by 39
Transcranial direct current stimulation over multiple days enhances motor performance of a grip task
Fan, J., Voisin, J. I. A., Milot, M.-H., Higgins, J., & Boudrias, M. (2017) · Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.rehab.2017.07.001 · Cited by 35
Weise, C. M., Bachmann, T., Schroeter, M. L., & Saur, D. (2019) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.01.070 · Cited by 39
“For detailed descriptions we refer to previous work (Tulsky et al., 2013; Weintraub et al., 2013; Zelazo et al., 2013) and the online available material (www.”
MethodStudying a moving target in development: The challenge and opportunity of heterotypic continuity
Petersen, I. T., Choe, D. E., & LeBeau, B. C. (2020) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2020.100935 · Cited by 35
“, when relying on accuracy alone) and to enhance the sensitivity of measures to detect developmental change (Carlson & Zelazo, 2014; Magnus et al., 2019; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
BackgroundDiStefano, C., Sadhwani, A., & Wheeler, A. (2020) · American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities · doi:10.1352/1944-7558-125.6.434 · Cited by 35
Klein, A., Clucas, J. C., Krishnakumar, A., Ghosh, S., Auken, W. V., Thonet, B., Sabram, I., Acuna, N., Keshavan, A., Rossiter, H., et al. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/22369 · Cited by 36
“Batteries of cognitive tasks, such as the NIH Toolbox [48,49], ACE [50], and Cambridge Cognition [51], are primarily used for research and are not currently intended for clinical practice; they are for the most part commercial, proprietary, and permit limited (if any) configuration options for…”
MethodLang, S., Gaxiola‐Valdez, I., Opoku-Darko, M., Partlo, L. A., Goodyear, B. G., Kelly, J. J., & Federico, P. (2017) · World Neurosurgery · doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2017.05.149 · Cited by 35
Curcumin supplementation and motor-cognitive function in healthy middle-aged and older adults
Santos‐Parker, J. R., Lubieniecki, K. L., Rossman, M. J., Ark, H. V., Bassett, C. J., Strahler, T. R., Chonchol, M. B., Justice, J. N., & Seals, D. R. (2018) · Nutrition and Healthy Aging · doi:10.3233/nha-170029 · Cited by 35
Josman, N., & Meyer, S. (2018) · Australian Occupational Therapy Journal · doi:10.1111/1440-1630.12525 · Cited by 41
Chen, B. T., Jin, T., Patel, S. K., Ye, N., Ma, H., Wong, C. W., Rockne, R. C., Root, J. C., Saykin, A. J., Ahles, T. A., et al. (2019) · Breast Cancer Research and Treatment · doi:10.1007/s10549-019-05230-y · Cited by 34
Cannabis involvement and neuropsychological performance: findings from the Human Connectome Project
Petker, T. D., Owens, M. M., Amlung, M. T., Oshri, A., Sweet, L. H., & MacKillop, J. M. (2019) · Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · doi:10.1503/jpn.180115 · Cited by 37
MicroRNA predicts cognitive performance in healthy older adults
Gullett, J. M., Chen, Z., O’Shea, A. M., Akbar, M., Bian, J., Rani, A., Porges, E. C., Foster, T. C., Woods, A. J., Modave, F. P., et al. (2020) · Neurobiology of Aging · doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2020.07.023 · Cited by 34
Parental Education, Household Income, Race, and Children’s Working Memory: Complexity of the Effects
Akhlaghipour, G., & Assari, S. (2020) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci10120950 · Cited by 37
Are the Acute Effects of THC Different in Aging Adults?
Mueller, R. L., Ellingson, J. M., Bidwell, L. C., Bryan, A. D., & Hutchison, K. E. (2021) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci11050590 · Cited by 32
The effects of bilingualism on hippocampal volume in ageing bilinguals
Voits, T., Robson, H., Rothman, J., & Pliatsikas, C. (2022) · Brain Structure and Function · doi:10.1007/s00429-021-02436-z · Cited by 40
Ott, L. R., Schantell, M. D., Willett, M. P., Johnson, H. J., Eastman, J. A., Okelberry, H. J., Wilson, T. W., Taylor, B. K., & May, P. E. (2022) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/neu0000813 · Cited by 40
Wu, X., Palaniyappan, L. K., Yu, G., Zhang, K., Seidlitz, J., Liu, Z., Kong, X., Schumann, G., Feng, J., Sahakian, B. J., et al. (2022) · Molecular Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41380-022-01896-x · Cited by 34
The Queensland Twin Adolescent Brain Project, a longitudinal study of adolescent brain development
Strike, L. T., Hansell, N. K., Chuang, K., Miller, J. L., de Zubicaray, G. I., Thompson, P. M., McMahon, K. L., & Wright, M. J. (2023) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-023-02038-w · Cited by 37
Superior fluid cognition in trained musicians
Meyer, J., Oguz, P. G., & Moore, K. S. (2018) · Psychology of Music · doi:10.1177/0305735618808089 · Cited by 40
“Fluid intelligence refers to cognitive skills such as working memory, processing speed, pattern recognition, and reasoning (Blair, 2006; Cattell, 1971; Weintrab et al., 2013).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialKnight, A., Bryan, J., & Murphy, K. J. (2016) · Nutritional Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/1028415x.2016.1183341 · Cited by 33
Clinical Development of Targeted Fragile X Syndrome Treatments: An Industry Perspective
Lee, A. W., Ventola, P. E., Budimirovic, D. B., Berry‐Kravis, E., & Visootsak, J. (2018) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci8120214 · Cited by 34
Use of Functional Assessment to Define Therapeutic Goals and Treatment
High, K. P., Zieman, S. J., Gurwitz, J. H., Hill, C. V., Lai, J. C., Robinson, T., Schonberg, M. A., & Whitson, H. E. (2019) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/jgs.15975 · Cited by 33
Reliability and Validity of the Spanish-Language Version of the NIH Toolbox
Fox, R. S., Manly, J. J., Slotkin, J., Peipert, J. D., & Gershon, R. C. (2020) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191120913943 · Cited by 32
“Wilson (2011) found an inverse relationship between age and performance on the Words-in-Noise Test in English.”
BackgroundSelf-citationRoediger, D. J., Krueger, A. M., de Water, E., Mueller, B. A., Boys, C. A., Hendrickson, T. J., Schumacher, M. J., Mattson, S. N., Jones, K. L., Lim, K. O., et al. (2020) · Neurotoxicology and Teratology · doi:10.1016/j.ntt.2020.106944 · Cited by 35
“Episodic memory To assess episodic memory, all 84 CIFASD participants completed the Picture Sequence Memory Test (PSMT) from the NIH Toolbox ® for Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function (NIH Toolbox) (Weintraub et al., 2013) on an iPad, though only those participants with usable MRI data were ultimately in…”
MethodInfluentialCerebral Hemodynamics and Executive Function in Sickle Cell Anemia
Prussien, K. V., Compas, B. E., Siciliano, R. E., Ciriegio, A. E., Lee, C. A., Kassim, A. A., DeBaun, M. R., Donahue, M. J., & Jordan, L. C. (2021) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.120.032741 · Cited by 33
Chang, L., Ryan, M. C., Liang, H., Zhang, X., Cunningham, E. P., Wang, J. L., Wilson, E. M. P., Herskovits, E. H., Kottilil, S., & Ernst, T. (2023) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000207309 · Cited by 34
Zahodne, L. B., Nowinski, C. J., Gershon, R. C., & Manly, J. J. (2014) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1093/arclin/acu045 · Cited by 33
Self-citationExecutive Function and Dysregulated Eating Behaviors in Pediatric Obesity
Gowey, M. A., Lim, C. S., Dutton, G. R., Silverstein, J. H., Dumont-Driscoll, M. C., & Janicke, D. M. (2017) · Journal of Pediatric Psychology · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsx091 · Cited by 33
Nguyen, T., Duncan, R. J., & Bailey, D. H. (2019) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.04.002 · Cited by 35
“Cognition assessment using the NIH Toolbox.”
MethodInfluentialRockhold, M. N., Krueger, A. M., de Water, E., Lindgren, C. W., Sandness, K. E., Eckerle, J. K., Schumacher, M. J., Fink, B. A., Boys, C. J., Carlson, S. M., et al. (2020) · Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research · doi:10.1111/acer.14538 · Cited by 35
“Cognitive Flexibility EF Measures: Three measures were used: the EF Scale for Preschoolers (Carlson, 2010), MEFS (Carlson and Zelazo, 2014), and NIH Toolbox’s DCCS Task (Gershon et al., 2013; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMarshall, A. T., McConnell, R., Lanphear, B. P., Thompson, W. K., Herting, M. M., & Sowell, E. R. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0258469 · Cited by 35
“NIH Toolbox tests show good convergent validity compared with gold standards of cognitive testing [44]: (1) the Picture Vocabulary Test (a measure of language; Version 2.”
MethodBidwell, L. C., Karoly, H. C., Torres, M. O., Master, A., Bryan, A. D., & Hutchison, K. E. (2021) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-021-06007-2 · Cited by 32
“2011) and List Sorting Working Memory, Picture Sequence Memory, and Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention assessed by three tasks from the NIH toolbox (Weintraub et al. 2013).”
MethodVlisides, P. E., Li, D., Maywood, M. J., Zierau, M., Lapointe, A. P., Brooks, J., McKinney, A., Leis, A. M., Mentz, G. B., & Mashour, G. A. (2023) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000004664 · Cited by 31
“The primary outcome was the postoperative National Institutes of Health Cognition Toolbox score, 17 defined as the average fully corrected T-score from the Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Test, List Sorting Working Memory Test, and Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test.”
Grech, O., Mitchell, J., Lyons, H., Yiangou, A., Thaller, M., Tsermoulas, G., Brock, K., Mollan, S. P., & Sinclair, A. J. (2024) · Eye · doi:10.1038/s41433-023-02908-y · Cited by 35
“This was an exploratory analysis of the IIH:Pressure trial, the power calculation has been published [19].”
MethodABC Dementia Scale: A Quick Assessment Tool for Determining Alzheimer’s Disease Severity
Mori, T., Kikuchi, T., Umeda‐Kameyama, Y., et al. (2018) · Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra · doi:10.1159/000486956 · Cited by 31
Baseline Cognition Assessment Among Patients With Oropharyngeal Cancer Using PROMIS and NIH Toolbox
Sinha, P., Wong, A., Kallogjeri, D., & Piccirillo, J. F. (2018) · JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery · doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2018.0283 · Cited by 31
Psychological resilience is linked to motor strength and gait endurance in early multiple sclerosis
Klineova, S., Brandstadter, R., Fabian, M. T., Sand, I. K., Krieger, S. C., Leavitt, V. M., Lewis, C., Riley, C., LUBLIN, F. D., Miller, A., et al. (2019) · Multiple Sclerosis Journal · doi:10.1177/1352458519852725 · Cited by 31
Neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants with retinopathy of prematurity
Tan, H., Blasco, P. M., Lewis, T. R., Ostmo, S. R., Chiang, M. F., & Campbell, J. P. (2021) · Survey of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2021.02.012 · Cited by 31
Pyatak, E. A., Hernandez, R., Pham, L. T., Mehdiyeva, K., Schneider, S., Peters, A. L., RUELAS, V. F., Crandall, J. P., Lee, P.-J., Jin, H., et al. (2021) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/30901 · Cited by 32
“We also removed the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox cognitive tests [35], which are completed with an in-person test administrator using iPads.”
Schmithorst, V. J., Badaly, D., Beers, S. R., Lee, V., Weinberg, J. G., Lo, C. W. Y., & Panigrahy, A. (2021) · Seminars in Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery · doi:10.1053/j.semtcvs.2021.10.014 · Cited by 32
Hayes‐Larson, E., Mobley, T. M., Mungas, D., Seamans, M. J., Glymour, M. M., Gilsanz, P., DeCarli, C. S., Whitmer, R. A., & Mayeda, E. R. (2022) · Alzheimer s & Dementia · doi:10.1002/alz.12522 · Cited by 33
Self-citationBabineau, V., Fonge, Y. N., Miller, E. S., Grobman, W. A., Ferguson, P. L., Hunt, K. J., Vena, J. E., Newman, R., Guille, C., Tita, A., et al. (2022) · Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2022.03.021 · Cited by 31
“Executive functions, which are top-down cognitive modulations of goal-directed activity, include inhibitory control/sustained attention, cognitive flexibility, and working memory.(11) These functions enable children to better control thoughts, feelings, and behaviors; facilitate their ability to learn, problem solve,…”
BackgroundInfluentialTroyer, A. K., Rowe, G., Murphy, K. J., Levine, B., Leach, L. R., & Hasher, L. (2014) · Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2014.00335 · Cited by 31
Casey, B. J., Simmons, C., Somerville, L. H., & Baskin-sommers, A. R. (2021) · Annual Review of Criminology · doi:10.1146/annurev-criminol-030920-113250 · Cited by 33
“However, strategic behaviors and decision-making under demanding conditions of increased attentional interference, memory load, or speeded response pressures show steady improvements beyond 18 years into the early twenties (Satterthwaite et al. 2013, Weintraub et al. 2013).”
BackgroundHamilton, L. D., Thomas, E., Almuklass, A. M., & Enoka, R. M. (2017) · Experimental Gerontology · doi:10.1016/j.exger.2017.07.003 · Cited by 31
Role of massa intermedia in human neurocognitive processing
Borghei, A., Cothran, T. P., Brahimaj, B. C., & Sani, S. (2020) · Brain Structure and Function · doi:10.1007/s00429-020-02050-5 · Cited by 28
Frontal White Matter Hyperintensities and Executive Functioning Performance in Older Adults
Boutzoukas, E. M., O’Shea, A. M., Albizu, A., Evangelista, N. D., Hausman, H. K., Kraft, J. N., Etten, E. J. V., Bharadwaj, P. K., Smith, S. G., Song, H., et al. (2021) · Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2021.672535 · Cited by 36
Gozdas, E., Fingerhut, H., Dacorro, L., Bruno, J. L., & Hosseini, S. M. H. (2021) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhab180 · Cited by 32
Boyne, P., Doren, S., Scholl, V., Staggs, E. J., Whitesel, D., Carl, D., Shatz, R. S., Sawyer, R. P., Awosika, O. O., Reisman, D. S., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Neurology · doi:10.3389/fneur.2022.812875 · Cited by 27
Sittiprapaporn, P., Bumrungpert, A., Suyajai, P., & Stough, C. K. K. (2022) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods11172595 · Cited by 30
Extended‐amygdala intrinsic functional connectivity networks: A population study
Berry, S. C., Wise, R. G., Lawrence, A. D., & Lancaster, T. M. (2020) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.25314 · Cited by 29
“The questionnaires used were administered to each participant by the HCP team and all measures were selected from the NIH toolbox, a well-validated set of metrics for quick assessment of cognitive, emotional, sensory and motor functions (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
MethodThe Cerebellum and Cognitive Function: Anatomical Evidence from a Transdiagnostic Sample
Bègue, I., Elandaloussi, Y., Delavari, F., Cao, H., Moussa‐Tooks, A. B., Roser, M. M., Pierrick Coupé, A., Leboyer, M., Kaiser, S., Houenou, J., et al. (2023) · The Cerebellum · doi:10.1007/s12311-023-01645-y · Cited by 29
“In the HBN database, cognition is quantified via the NIH Toolbox Cognition domain [21].”
MethodChopra, S., Dhamala, E., Lawhead, C., Ricard, J. A., Orchard, E. R., An, L., Chen, P., Wulan, N., Kumar, P., Rubenstein, A., et al. (2024) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adn1862 · Cited by 38
“Briefly, for the HCP-EP, measures included the National Institutes of Health Toolbox ( 76 ) and Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence ( 77 ).”
Peterson, K. L., Sánchez-Romero, R., Mill, R. D., & Cole, M. W. (2025) · Imaging Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/imag.a.162 · Cited by 30
“We analyzed data from all available mea sures of fluid intelligence ( Bookheimer et al., 2019 ( Weintraub et al., 2013), as well as the Rey Audi tory Verbal Learning Test ( Rey, 1941) and Trail Making Test B ( Bowie & Harvey, 2006).”
The effects of working memory on brain–computer interface performance
Sprague, S. A., McBee, M. T., & Sellers, E. W. (2015) · Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2015.10.038 · Cited by 31
“Feeling active, vital, alert, or wide awake 1 Functioning at high levels, but not at peak; able to concentrate 2 Awake, but relaxed; responsive but not fully alert 3 Somewhat foggy, let down 4 Foggy; losing interest in remaining awake; slowed down 5 Sleepy, woozy, fighting sleep; prefer to lie down 6 No longer fightin…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialImpaired cerebral blood flow regulation in chronic traumatic brain injury
Ding, K., Tarumi, T., Tomoto, T., Max, M., Le, T., Dieppa, M., Diaz-Arrastia, R. R., Bell, K. R., Madden, C. J., Cullum, C. M., et al. (2020) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2020.146924 · Cited by 31
Barber, S. J., Lopez, N., Cadambi, K., & Alferez, S. (2020) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104267 · Cited by 50
“For additional details about these assessments, see Weintraub et al. (2013) and Heaton, et al. (2014).”
BackgroundKeller, A. S., Moore, T. M., Luo, A. C., Visoki, E., Gataviņš, M. M., Shetty, A., Cui, Z., Yong Fan, A., Feczko, E., Houghton, A., et al. (2024) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2024.101370 · Cited by 34
“Studies of the “ exposome ” (Rappaport, 2011; Wild, 2005) have un-covered associations with a variety of physical and mental health outcomes in adults and, more recently, mental health outcomes in children (Moore et al., 2022; Barzilay et al., 2022; Pries et al., 2022).”
BackgroundPredicting human inhibitory control from brain structural MRI
He, N., Rolls, E. T., Zhao, W., & Guo, S. (2019) · Brain Imaging and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11682-019-00166-9 · Cited by 27
Cumming, M. M., Smith, S. W., & O’Brien, K. M. (2019) · Psychology in the Schools · doi:10.1002/pits.22293 · Cited by 30
Kelley, S., Plass, J., Bender, A. R., & Polk, T. (2021) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhab056 · Cited by 30
“All participants were healthy (no debilitating physical conditions, mental illness, or head trauma), were right-handed and were free of significant cognitive impairment (specifically, they all had a composite overall cognition score > 85 on the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery; Weintraub et al. 2013).”
BackgroundReduced modulation of BOLD variability as a function of cognitive load in healthy aging
Rieck, J. R., DeSouza, B., Baracchini, G., & Grady, C. L. (2022) · Neurobiology of Aging · doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2022.01.010 · Cited by 29
Cherup, N., Roberson, K. B., Potiaumpai, M., Widdowson, K., Jaghab, A., Chowdhari, S., Armitage, C., Seeley, A. D., & Signorile, J. F. (2018) · Experimental Gerontology · doi:10.1016/j.exger.2018.09.007 · Cited by 34
“Specifically, the cognitive domain of the NIH Toolbox utilized in this study has been validated in multiple populations (Weintraub et al., 2013; Weintraub et al., 2014).”
Dufour, S. C., Adams, R. S., Brody, D. L., Puente, A. N., & Gray, J. C. (2020) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2020.07.003 · Cited by 28
Metadata
- Authors
- Weintraub, S., Dikmen, S. S., Heaton, R. K., Tulsky, D. S., Zelazo, P. D., Bauer, P. J., Carlozzi, N. E., Slotkin, J., Blitz, D., Wallner-Allen, K., Fox, N. A., Beaumont, J. L., Mungas, D., Nowinski, C. J., Richler, J., Deocampo, J. A., Anderson, J. E., Manly, J. J., Borosh, B., Havlik, R., Conway, K., Edwards, E., Freund, L., King, J. W., Moy, C., Witt, E., & Gershon, R. C.
- Affiliations
- From the Cognitive Neurology and Alzheimer's Disease Center (S.W., B.B.), Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.S.D.), University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Department of Psychiatry (R.K.H.), University of California, San Diego, CA; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (D.S.T., N.E.C.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Institute of Child Development (P.D.Z., J.E.A.), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; Department of...
- University of Minnesota (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Neurology
- Published
- 2013-03-12
- Volume
- 80
- Issue
- 11_supplement_3
- Pages
- S54-64
- ISSN
- 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-632X
- PMC
- PMC3662346
- OpenAlex
- W4296295377
- Semantic Scholar
- ad1bf29d236b7efc7939f4798eb18300052b81c2
- Cited by
- 1,287
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 106 · 2025: 140 · 2024: 162 · 2023: 143 · 2022: 157 · 2021: 163 · 2020: 130 · 2019: 88 · 2018: 71 · 2017: 50 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 11
- FWCI
- 33.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Neurology (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Kessler Foundation
- Brown University
- Ohio State University
- Northwestern University
- University of Washington
- Temple University
- National Institutes of Health (5ul1rr025761-04)
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (HHSN260200600007C)
- U.S. Public Health Service (NIDRR H133G090022, NIDRR H133A080035, H133A070037-08A, H133B090024, H133G070138, HHSN260200600007, H133A980023, H133N060022, B6237R)
- University of California, San Diego
- University of California, San Francisco
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (201963)
- National Institute on Aging (R01AG028786, R01 AG016206, U01 AG14282, R01AG037212, RC2AG036498, U01AG014260, N01-AG-6-0007, U01AG14260, 1RC2AG036498-01, U01AG014263, U01AG014276, R01AG010220, U01AG014289, P30AG013854, AG-260-06-01, U01AG014282)
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K23HL085766 NIA, K23HL085766)
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH074454, U01MH083506, R01MH058076, R01MH078748, R01 MH060720, R01MH081861, U01MH074454, P50MH078105, R01 MH073433, R01MH083552, U01MH080759, R01MH078737, R01MH080759, R01MH091363, R01MH074454, P30MH062512)
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (P50DA026306, P01DA012065)
- National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC008552)
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (U01DK082342, 1U01DK082342-01)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (HHSN 2652004236-01C, R03NS065194, U01 NS 056 975 02, R01 NS058302, NIH R01 NS058302)
- National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (U01 AR057929, U54AR057943, 1U5AR057943-01)
- National Center for Research Resources (UL1-RR025761)
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R37 HD017899, P01HD064653, R01HD061400, HHSN267200700027C, HD05469, R01HD054659, R01HD067359)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Keywords
- NIH Toolbox, cognitive assessment, executive function, episodic memory, language, processing speed, working memory, attention, test-retest reliability, construct validity, age effects, computerized cognitive assessment, cognitive outcome measures
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Attention, Child, Child, Preschool, Cognition, Cognition Disorders, Humans, Language, Middle Aged, National Institutes of Health (U.S.), Neuropsychological Tests, United States, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
