Exploring the structure of a neuropsychological battery across healthy elders and those with questionable dementia and Alzheimer's disease.
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
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and a series of confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on 17 variables designed to assess different cognitive abilities in a sample of healthy older adults. In the EFA, 4 factors emerged corresponding to language, memory, processing speed, and fluid ability constructs. The results of the confirmatory factor analyses suggested that a 5-factor model with an additional Attention factor improved the fit. The invariance of the 5-factor model was examined across 3 groups: a group of cognitively healthy older adults, a group of patients diagnosed with questionable dementia (QD), and a group of patients diagnosed with probable Alzheimer's disease (AD). Results of the invariance analysis suggest that the model may have configural invariance across the 3 groups but not metric invariance. Specifically, preliminary analyses suggest that the memory construct may represent something different in the QD and AD groups as compared to the healthy older adult group, consistent with the underlying pathology in early AD.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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