P1‐482: The nature of memory failure in mild cognitive impairment: examining effect of progression and comorbid factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main goal of this study was to assess memory binding capacities and proactive interference in persons with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Second, we sought to identify which brain measures are related to these memory deficits. Finally, we aimed to evaluate the ability of memory scores or brain changes to predict progression to dementia. This was done using two different versions of the AB/AC Paired-Associate paradigm. In one version, we used pairs of words that had no semantic relationship in order to increase the magnitude of binding difficulties. In the second version we used semantically related words as a manner to increase the magnitude of the proactive interference. These conditions were administered to 77 participants, 49 meeting criteria for MCI and 28 healthy older controls. Results showed binding deficits and reduced resistance to proactive interference in persons with MCI when compared with healthy older adults. The hippocampal volume was associated with binding capacity whereas vascular burden was associated with resistance to interference among MCIs. Follow-up analyses indicated that binding deficits in MCIs significantly predicted progression to dementia. In conclusion, binding and vulnerability to proactive interference are present in patients in a prodromal phase of dementia and are associated with different brain markers, however only binding deficits predict progression to dementia.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".