Looking anew at cognitive dysfunction in multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Inattentional blindness refers to a phenomenon in which individuals fail to notice an object in plain sight. Present in healthy, cognitively intact individuals, it has not been studied in patients with MS in whom it could theoretically act as a marker for real-world cognitive difficulties in those deemed cognitively intact on conventional neuropsychological batteries. Our hypothesis was that difficulty sustaining attention in patients with MS would paradoxically be associated with less inattentional blindness. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was undertaken in which a consecutive sample of 68 patients with MS completed neuropsychological testing with the Minimal Assessment of Cognitive Function in Multiple Sclerosis (MACFIMS) battery. Two additional tests were administered, the Stroop Test and a measure of inattentional blindness, i.e., the gorilla in the room paradigm. The gorilla test elicited 2 variables: the ability to detect the gorilla and the number of times a ball was passed between members of one team. RESULTS: Cognitive dysfunction by MACFIMS criteria was present in 36.8 of subjects. There were no differences between patients with MS and healthy control subjects on the gorilla indices. Similarly, no inattentional differences were present between cognitively intact and impaired patients with MS. However, patients with MS who were impaired on the Stroop and 2-second Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test were more likely than their intact counterparts to detect the gorilla (p = 0.038 and 0.014, respectively), with Stroop-impaired patients detecting fewer ball passes (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The results support our hypothesis that less inattentional blindness is associated with heightened distractibility. This may explain why some patients with MS deemed cognitively intact on a battery of tests such as the MACFIMS still struggle with real-world challenges such as multitasking and filtering distracting stimuli.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".