Executive function deficits in patients with dementia of the Alzheimer's type A study with a Tower of London task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing number of studies report a deterioration of the executive function (EF) in dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT). To evaluate EFs in DAT, a new version of the Tower of London (TOL) task, originally developed by Shallice (1982), was adapted. The new version of the test was built up in its easiest possible feature in order to be administrable to early- or middle-stage demented patients. Seventeen DAT patients, and 17 controls matched for age and sex, were administered the TOL. The protocol followed a "hierarchical paradigm," that is, simpler problems were embedded in more complex, subsequent problems. Results showed that DAT patients were impaired compared to controls. Both control and DAT groups showed a decrease in percentage of success rate in relation to the number of movements required by the task. On the more complex problems, the performance of DAT subjects was proportionally more impaired. Qualitative analysis revealed that rule breaking was a salient performance feature of the DAT group. These findings are consistent with the presence of an EF deficit in DAT.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".