Grooved Pegboard Predicates More of Cognitive Than Motor Involvement in Parkinson’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
The Grooved Pegboard Test (GPT) was conceived as a test of manual dexterity, upper-limb motor speed, and hand-eye coordination. The aim of our study was to test the componential structure of the GPT on an archetypal model of motor impairment, Parkinson's disease (PD). A total of 45 PD patients (33 males, 12 females; age M = 67, range = 49-81; PD duration M = 10, range = 6-20 years; H/Y stage 2, range = 2-3) and 20 age- and education-matched controls (14 males, 6 females; age M = 66, range = 48-80) were included. All participants were investigated using the GPT, Short Falls Efficacy Scale-International, Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Non-Motor Symptom Scale. Patients were followed for 6 months, using fall diaries and monthly phone calls to define PD fallers (falls ≥ 1; n = 27) and PD nonfallers (falls = 0; n = 18). Using structural equation modeling, the GPT predicted performance on the MoCA (p < .001), but not on the FAB (p = .29). In conclusion, analysis of the structure of the GPT provided evidence about important cognitive features, in addition to the motor component of this test in PD.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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