MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112454229 · doi:10.1017/s1355617707070452

Memory for intentions in amnestic mild cognitive impairment: Time- and event-based prospective memory

2007· article· en· W2112454229 on OpenAlexafffund
Angela K. Troyer, Kelly J. Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the International Neuropsychological Society · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Functions and Memory
Canadian institutionsBaycrest Hospital
FundersAlzheimer SocietyJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsProspective memoryRetrospective memoryCognitive impairmentPsychologyCognitive psychologyAmnesiaCognitionAudiologyEpisodic memoryMedicineNeuroscienceExplicit memory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) is associated with neuropathological changes in medial-temporal and frontal-system structures. By definition, retrospective memory is mildly impaired in aMCI. We examined whether prospective memory (PM) is also impaired, in particular time-based PM, which requires considerable self-initiation and inhibition. We administered time- and event-based PM tasks to 42 healthy older adults, 45 individuals with aMCI, and 24 individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD). The healthy group performed better than the aMCI group, and the aMCI group performed better than the AD group on both PM tasks. Importantly, the aMCI group performed more poorly on the time- than event-based task, whereas the other groups performed comparably on both tasks. Findings suggest that PM, particularly time-based PM, is sensitive to the earliest cognitive changes associated with aMCI, possibly reflecting decreased self-initiation, attention switching, and/or inhibition on memory tasks because of early involvement of the frontal system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations106
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the International Neuropsychological SocietySame topicCognitive Functions and MemoryFrench-language works237,207