MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061984965 · doi:10.1155/2012/209570

Effects of Anosognosia on Perceived Stress and Cortisol Levels in Alzheimer’s Disease

2012· article· en· W2061984965 on OpenAlexafffund
Geneviève Arsenault‐Lapierre, Victor Whitehead, Sonia Lupien, Howard Chertkow

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Alzheimer s Disease · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire en santé mentale de MontréalJewish General Hospital
FundersPfizer CanadaH. Lundbeck A/SAlzheimer Society Research ProgramCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchLundbeck CanadaAlzheimer SocietyPfizer
KeywordsAnosognosiaMedicineDiseaseStress (linguistics)Clinical psychologyPsychiatryGerontologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anosognosia, or unawareness of one's own cognitive deficits, may cause issues when measuring perceived stress and cortisol levels in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). The goal of this study was to examine the effects of anosognosia on perceived stress and salivary cortisol levels in normal elderly (NE) adults, MCI individuals, newly diagnosed AD patients, and long-lasting AD patients, suspected to show more anosognosia. An anosognosia index for perceived stress was computed by subtracting the score on the Perceived Stress Scale measured in the participants and their relative. Cortisol levels were measured four times a day over two nonconsecutive days. Greater anosognosia for dementia correlated with greater anosognosia for perceived stress in the group as a whole. However, no correlation between cortisol levels and either anosognosia for dementia or perceived stress was observed. Our results suggest that measuring perceived stress in AD patients may be influenced by anosognosia.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Alzheimer s DiseaseSame topicNeurological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207