Intraindividual Variability in Cognitive Performance in Persons With Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
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
Studies of cognitive performance among persons with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) have yielded inconsistent results. We sought to contribute to findings in this area by examining intraindividual variability as well as level of performance in cognitive functioning. A battery of cognitive measures was administered to 14 CFS patients and 16 healthy individuals on 10 weekly occasions. Analyses comparing the two groups in terms of level of performance defined by latency and accuracy scores revealed that the CFS patients were slower but not less accurate than healthy persons. The CFS group showed greater intraindividual variability (as measured by intraindividual standard deviations and coefficients of variation) than the healthy group, although the results varied by task and time frame. Intraindividual variability was found to be stable across time and correlated across tasks at each testing occasion. Intraindividual variability also uniquely differentiated the groups. The present findings support the proposition that intraindividual variability is a meaningful indicator of cognitive functioning in CFS patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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