Neuropsychological Deficit in Early Subcortical Vascular Dementia: Comparison to 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
To further clarify the cognitive syndrome in subcortical vascular dementia (VaD), we investigated 20 patients with early-stage VaD as compared with 30 patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and 22 normal controls using episodic memory, attention/executive function and language tests. The patient groups were closely matched in terms of age, education and severity of dementia. The VaD patients had a significantly better free recall, cued recall and recognition memory than AD patients, the recognition being within normal limits in VaD. In addition, VaD patients had a greater number of perseverative errors during the Modified Card Sorting test, while AD patients exhibited more perseverations of semantic fluency. The results of retrieval deficit syndrome and increased number of perseverations during tasks sensitive to frontal lobe function are in agreement with the studies emphasizing the importance of frontal dysfunction in subcortical VaD. These findings are relevant for the early diagnosis of VaD and might be useful in the differential diagnosis with AD.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it