Prospective memory in amnestic mild cognitive impairment
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
Individuals with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) often complain of difficulty remembering to carry out intended actions, consistent with findings of impaired prospective memory (PM) in this population. In this study, individuals with aMCI (N = 27) performed worse than healthy controls (N = 27) on the Memory for Intentions Screening Test (Raskin, 2004), including on time- and event-based subscales, and recognition of the intentions. The aMCI participants made more errors overall, but the proportion of the various error types did not differ between the two groups. Across all error types, both groups made more retrospective than prospective errors, especially on event-based PM tasks. Overall, the findings suggest that PM impairment in aMCI is associated with deficient cue detection involving both automatic (as in event-based tasks) and more strategic detection (as in time-based tasks) processes. These difficulties are likely due to a combination of problematic retrospective episodic memory (e.g., reduced encoding and/or consolidation of cue-intention pairings) and executive functions (e.g., decreased self-initiation, attention switching, and/or inhibition on memory tasks). Formal assessment of PM may help characterize the nature of the memory impairment among individuals with aMCI in clinical neuropsychological evaluations.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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