MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125882347 · doi:10.1080/13554794.2014.917681

Emotional evaluation and memory in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia

2014· article· en· W2125882347 on OpenAlexafffund
Peggy L. St. Jacques, Cheryl L. Grady, Patrick S. R. Davidson, Tiffany W. Chow

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurocase · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBruyèreUniversity of OttawaHeart and Stroke FoundationBaycrest Hospital
FundersNational Institute on AgingCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsFrontotemporal dementiaRecallPsychologyEmotional memoryAudiologyDementiaMemory testMemory impairmentRecognition memoryCognitive psychologyCognitionNeuroscienceMedicineDiseaseInternal medicineAmygdala

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) affects emotional evaluation, but less is known regarding the patients' ability to remember emotional stimuli. Here, bvFTD patients and age-matched controls studied positive, negative, and neutral pictures followed by a recognition memory test. Compared to controls, bvFTD patients showed a reduction in emotional evaluation of negative scenes, but not of positive or neutral scenes. Additionally, the patients showed an overall reduction in recognition memory accuracy, due to impaired recollection in the face of relatively preserved familiarity. These results show that bvFTD reduces the emotional evaluation of negative scenes and impairs overall recognition memory accuracy and recollection.

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)0.001
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurocaseSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207