Confabulation and multiple sclerosis: a rare association
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fantastic confabulation in the context of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) has not previously been reported in the literature. The association is of interest because clearly demonstrable brain pathology in MS together with other cognitive and behavioural correlates may further our understanding of the neural basis underlying confabulation. METHODS: A single case report with magnetic resonance imaging of the brain and detailed neuropsychological evaluation. RESULTS: Confabulation occurred together with disinhibited and stimulus bound behaviour. While the patient's physical and emotional state limited the range of psychometric tests administered, the results revealed an inability to maintain focused, regulated information processing. Although memory difficulties were present, they were not in the nature of a severe amnesic disorder. The patient appeared to have a broad fund of knowledge, but the associations binding the information together and putting it into context were loose. All three features of a triad of responses previously described in confabulating patients were present, namely an inability to withhold answers, to monitor one's own responses and provide verbal self corrections. MRI of the brain showed bilateral periventricular lesions and discrete frontal lesions with 53% of the total lesion volume distributed in frontal areas. Cortical atrophy, most marked in frontal regions also was conspicuous. CONCLUSIONS: Confabulation linked to frontal lobe involvement may occur as part of the changes in mentation found in MS. It is, however, rare and although associated with impaired memory, may be found in the absence of a severe amnesic disorder. This conclusion is discussed in the light of observations from the literature suggesting that frontal involvement is a prerequisite before fantastic confabulation occurs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".