Word List Generation Performancein Alzheimer's Disease and Vascular Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Word list generation (WLG) was examined among clinical samples of individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD) (n = 73) or ischemic vascular dementia (IVD) (n = 85), equivalent in age, education, current and estimated premorbid intellectual functioning, and proportion of men and women. The AD group performed significantly better than did the IVD group on lexical WLG, and a trend was observed indicating superior performance among the IVD group on categorical WLG. Within-groups, comparisons of group means, and profile analyses of individual performance patterns all indicated that persons with AD demonstrated a lexical > categorical pattern significantly more often than did IVD participants. The absolute difference in average performance between the AD and IVD groups on lexical and categorical WLG was small; the findings, however, generally support the clinical utility of the lexical > categorical WLG pattern in the differential diagnosis of AD and IVD. The patterns of performance support the presence of relative impairment in semantic processing among the individuals with AD and global deficits in retrieval and processing speed in individuals with IVD.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".