Il mental imagery nell'anziano: quanto incide sul funzionamento cognitivo generale?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Viene passata in rassegna la letteratura sul Mental Imagery in eta anziana, con riferimento ai diversi processi implicati e agli stimoli proposti. Viene quindi posto un problema metodologico: se e quanto incidono le abilita specifiche di visualizzazione ed elaborazione delle immagini sulla prestazione ai test comunemente usati per la valutazione del decadimento mentale generale: Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) e Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). La verifica e stata compiuta in un campione di 199 persone, 90 maschi e 109 femmine, in eta fra 55 e 93 anni. E stata verificata la predittivita del test di immaginazione (punteggio totale del Mental Imagery Test, MIT) e di altre prove somministrate rispetto alla prestazione nel test MMSE e MoCA, mediante equazioni di regressione multipla che hanno confermato la preponderanza delle prove di immaginazione nel predire la prestazione cognitiva generale; questa predittivita e nettamente superiore rispetto alle altre prove cognitive ed anche alle variabili eta e scolarita.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".