Attentional deficits in Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Huntington's diseases
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
INTRODUCTION: Attentional deficits have been shown in Alzheimer's disease but it is unknown whether this reflects disease specific impairment or is present in other neurodegenerative disorders. MATERIALS & METHODS: We administered a verbal dichotic listening task (free recall and selective allocation to the left or right ear) to 17 patients with Alzheimer's disease, 19 patients with Huntington's disease, 10 patients with idiopathic Parkinson's disease with clinical evidence of dementia (DemPD), 22 non-demented patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), and 22 healthy controls. Patients with dementia were matched for dementia severity and performance in the 3 recall conditions was used as a measure of attentional capacity. RESULTS: Patients with dementia (Alzheimer and Huntington patients, DemPD) were less accurate than those without dementia (PD and normal subjects). Demented subjects performed at comparable levels regardless of specific diagnosis; likewise those without dementia also achieved similar levels. All groups had a right ear preference under the free recall condition. Alzheimer and Huntington patients showed consistent right ear preference under all recall conditions, while PD patients, like controls, could selectively allocate attention to the left under left ear recall, regardless of the presence of dementia. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest a double dissociation. Non-selective attentional processing is affected by dementia presence versus absence but not by specific disease, while selective attentional processing shows disease specific impairments, regardless of the presence of 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.
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