Memory for gist and detail information in Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments examined different forms of gist and detail memory in people with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and those with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI). In Experiment 1, 14 AD, 14 MCI, and 22 control participants were assessed with the Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm. Results indicated that false recognition of nonstudied critical lures (gist memory) was diminished in the AD compared with the MCI and control groups; the two latter cohorts performed similarly. In Experiment 2, 14 AD, 20 MCI, and 26 control participants were tested on a text memory task. Results revealed that recall of both macropropositions (gist information) and micropropositions (detail information) decreased significantly in AD and in MCI as compared with control participants. This experiment also revealed that the impairment was comparable between gist and detail memory. In summary, the results were consistent across experiments in the AD but not in the MCI participants. The discrepancy in MCI participants might be explained by differences in the degree of sensitivity of the experimental procedures and/or by the differences in the cognitive processes these procedures assessed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".