1230 – Selective Attention And Cognitive Decline In Institutionalized Elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction When cognitive decline (CD) is present, attention is one of the impaired mental functions. CD is also associated with anxious/depressive symptoms and with some demographic variables, particularly, age. Objectives Investigate the associations between selective attention (Stroop Test: Stroop_Word, Stroop_Color, Difference between Stroop_Word and Stroop_Color, Stroop Ratio_Word, Stroop Ratio_Color and Difference between Stroop Ratio_Word and Stroop Ratio_ Color) and CD (Montreal Cognitive Assessment/MoCA) in institutionalized elders; explore the predictive value of Stroop variables for CD, controlling anxious/depressive symptoms and sociodemographic variables. Methods 140 institutionalized elders (mean age, M = 78.4, SD = 7.48, range = 60-97) voluntarily answered to sociodemographic questions, the MoCA, the Geriatric Anxiety Inventory/GAI, the Geriatric Depression Scale/GDS and Stroop test. Results 73 elders (52, 1%) had CD. Dichotomized MoCA was associated with Stroop_Word, Stroop_Color, Stroop Ratio_Word, Stroop Ratio_Color, GDS and the sociodemographic variable schooling × profession. Age and education were not tested, since MoCA was stratified according to those variables. GDS, Stroop Ratio_Word and Stroop Ratio_Color showed to predict CD. Conclusions There was an association between Stroop_Word, Stroop_Color, Stroop Ratio_Word and Stroop Ratio_Color and CD, confirming that selective attention is smaller when the elderly reveal CD. GDS and CD were, also, associated. However, there was no association between MoCA dichotomized and differences between the correct answers (Stroop_Word and Stroop_Color) and Ratios (Stroop Ratio_Word and Stroop Ratio_Color). Selective attention and depressive symptoms predicted CD. It would be important to intervene through cognitive rehabilitation with the elders to improve their attention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 teacher head, 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".