MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069203452 · doi:10.1017/s1355617706060590

Verbal fluency patterns in amnestic mild cognitive impairment are characteristic of Alzheimer's type dementia

2006· article· en· W2069203452 on OpenAlexaff
Kelly J. Murphy, Jill B. Rich, Angela K. Troyer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the International Neuropsychological Society · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluencyPsychologyVerbal fluency testNeuropathologySemantic memoryCognitive psychologyEpisodic memoryNeuropsychologyCognitionDementiaAudiologyMedicineDiseaseNeurosciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) represents a high-risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and is characterized by a selective decline in episodic memory. Although by definition aMCI is not associated with impaired verbal fluency performance, we examined relative differences between fluency tasks because AD is characterized by poorer semantic than phonemic fluency. Phonemic and semantic fluency trials were administered to 46 healthy controls, 33 patients with aMCI, and 33 patients with AD. Results revealed a progressive advantage (controls > aMCI > AD) in semantic, relative to phonemic fluency. Difference scores between tasks distinguished each group from the others with medium to large effect sizes (d) ranging from 0.49 to 1.07. Semantic fluency relies more on semantic associations between category exemplars than does phonemic fluency. This aMCI fluency pattern reflects degradation of semantic networks demonstrating that initial neuropathology may extend beyond known early changes in hippocampal regions. (JINS, 2006, 12, 570–574.)The data were collected in accordance with the guidelines of the Helsinki Declaration and approved by the Research Ethics and Scientific Review Committee of Baycrest Centre. This is an original submission. Portions of these data were presented at the annual meeting of the International Neuropsychological Society, February 2005, St. Louis, Missouri. There is no conflict of interest.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations238
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the International Neuropsychological SocietySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207