Dysgraphia in Relation to Cognitive Performance in Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dysgraphia has been observed in patients presenting mild to moderate levels of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in several studies. In the present study, 30 AD patients and 30 matched healthy controls, originating from the Lazio region, Rome, Italy, were examined on tests of letter-writing ability and cognitive performance over a series of 10 test days that extended over 19 days (Test days: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19). Consistent deficits by the AD patients over the initial cognition test (PQ1), 2nd cognition test (PQ2) and the difference between them (D∆), expressing deterioration, and writing-time compared the group of healthy control subjects were obtained. Furthermore, the performances of the AD patients on the PQ1, D∆ and writing-time, but not the PQ2, tests deteriorated from the 1st five days of testing (Days 1-9) to the 2nd five days (11-19). Both AD patients’ and healthy controls’ MMSE scores were markedly and significantly correlated with performance of PQ1, writing-time and PQ2. The extent of dysgraphia and progressive deficits in the AD patients implicate multiple brain regions in the loss of functional integrity.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 it