Neuropsychological Comparison of Alzheimer’s Disease and Dementia with Lewy Bodies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The present study examined the patterns of memory and cognitive performance associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). METHODS: A battery of standardized neuropsychological tests was administered to individuals with these disorders as well as to a group of cognitively intact controls. The battery included measures of memory (learning, recall and recognition), language, visuospatial ability, psychomotor speed, executive functioning and mood. All subjects (n = 115) were evaluated at a memory disorder clinic and were diagnosed based on published criteria. RESULTS: The controls outperformed both dementia groups on all cognitive measures. With respect to memory, the DLB group scored significantly higher than the AD group on measures of word list free recall and recognition (p < or = 0.001). In other cognitive domains, the AD group performed significantly better than the DLB group on constructional praxis, sustained attention, phonemic fluency, spatial judgment, psychomotor speed and working memory (all p < or = 0.01). CONCLUSION: These findings support the usefulness of memory and other cognitive test score patterns as in distinguishing AD from DLB, particularly in mild to moderately demented populations that may not present with hallmark symptomology.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".