MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051032231 · doi:10.1080/13825580701858216

Exploring Cognitive Effects of Self Reported Mild Stroke in Older Adults: Selective but Robust Effects on Story Memory

2008· article· en· W2051032231 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Mansueti, Cindy M. de Frias, Daniel N. Bub, Roger A. Dixon

Bibliographic record

VenueAging Neuropsychology and Cognition · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsNeurocognitiveCognitionStroke (engine)PsychologySet (abstract data type)Episodic memoryWorking memoryLateralization of brain functionCognitive psychologyAudiologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relatively little systematic information is available regarding patterns of cognitive effects of mild stroke in older adults. We explored this problem with a series of two independent samples from the Victoria Longitudinal Study data archives. In Study 1, self-reported mild stroke and neurologically intact matched controls were (a) confirmed as similar on a set of neurocognitive speed, basic cognition, and awareness indicators, and (b) compared for differences on a set of episodic, semantic, and working memory tasks. The mild stroke group was selectively worse on the language intensive story memory task. This effect was partially attributable to a deficit in remembering the most thematic information. Study 2 closely replicated these procedures and results. In addition, Study 2 follow-up analyses, comparing provisional right-hemisphere damaged and left-hemisphere damaged (LHD) participants, revealed that the thematic story memory deficit for mild stroke participants could be due to the selective impairment of LHD participants.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAging Neuropsychology and CognitionSame topicNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFrench-language works237,207