MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963816155 · doi:10.1016/s0887-6177(00)00109-8

Beyond memory impairment: cognitive changes in Alzheimer's disease

2002· article· en· W1963816155 on OpenAlexaff
Edward Helmes

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Clinical Neuropsychology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApraxiaAphasiaNeuropsychologyCognitionPsychologyAgnosiaMemory impairmentAlzheimer's diseaseBoston Naming TestNeuropsychological testAudiologyCognitive disorderDiseaseCognitive impairmentNeuropsychological assessmentCognitive testPsychiatryMedicineCognitive psychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In addition to memory impairment, deficits in other cognitive processes are common in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD). The diagnosis of AD does not consider the relative prevalence of deficits in cognitive areas other than memory. We report on the prevalence of aphasia, apraxia, and other cognitive changes in individuals from a large representative sample of elderly Canadians. The proportion of these symptoms and the relevant neuropsychological test performance were compared in a group of 749 people over 65 years in age with AD and a control group of 563 people without cognitive impairment. Agnosia was less common in both groups than were deficits in complex visuomotor tasks, abstract thinking, aphasia, and constructional defects. The occurrence of all symptoms increased, and levels of performance on relevant neuropsychological tests decreased, with severity of Alzheimer disease. The tests did not, however, distinguish between possible and probable AD. Both these diagnostic groups showed similar levels of performance, which suggests that this distinction is not clinically meaningful.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations28
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Clinical NeuropsychologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207