Working memory in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease: Contribution of forgetting and predictive value of complex span tasks.
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
OBJECTIVE: This study examines working memory (WM) in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHOD: Performances on sentence span and operation span were measured in individuals meeting criteria for MCI (n = 20) and AD (n = 16) as well as in healthy older adults (n = 20). In addition, the effect of retention interval was assessed by manipulating the length of first and last items of trials (long-short vs. short-long), as forgetting might contribute to impaired performance in AD and MCI. RESULTS: Results show a group effect (p < .001, η² = .47): In both conditions and for both material types, WM span is lower in AD than in MCI (p < .001), which in turn is lower than in healthy aging (p < .05). An effect of retention interval on complex span was found for all groups (p < .001, η² = .57), supporting a role for forgetting within WM. When computing a proportional interval effect (p < .05, η² = .12), it was found that persons with AD were more sensitive to retention interval than were healthy older adults (p < .05). Among persons with MCI, those who later showed significant clinical deterioration or progression to AD were more affected by retention interval (p < .05, η² = .28) than were those who remained stable. Furthermore, deficits in AD are associated with a higher proportion of intrusion errors, particularly those from the current trial (p < .05, η² = .15), which could reflect inhibitory processes. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these results indicate impaired WM in age-related disorders with a gradient between MCI and AD. Retention interval increases deficit in persons with AD. It also shows potential in predicting a negative prognosis in those with MCI.
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