MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092389444 · doi:10.1080/02699050400005093

Cognitive structure of executive deficits in patients with frontal lesions performing activities of daily living

2004· article· en· W2092389444 on OpenAlexaff
Lucie Godbout, Marie-Lyne Grenier, Claude M. J. Braun, Sylvain Gagnon

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Injury · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrontal lobeExecutive functionsActivities of daily livingMeal preparationExecutive dysfunctionPsychologyTask (project management)NeuropsychologyCognitionAudiologyCambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated BatteryNeuropsychological testPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineWorking memoryNeurosciencePsychiatrySpatial memory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Executive function in activities of daily living (ADL) were investigated in 10 patients with excised frontal lobe tumours. METHOD: The patients with frontal lesions were compared to 10 normal controls with a neuropsychological test battery, a script generation task and a realistic implementation of complex multi-task ADL (planning and preparing a meal). RESULTS: The patients manifested numerous basic executive deficits on the paper-pencil tests, were unimpaired on the script generation task despite an aberrant semantic structure and manifested marked anomalies in the meal preparation task. CONCLUSION: Frontal lobe deficits in lengthy complex multi-task ADL can be explained by impairment of several executive functions, generalized slowness of performance and paucity of behaviour.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations59
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain InjurySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207