MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131468827 · doi:10.1176/jnp.15.2.130

A Critical Review of Memory Stimulation Programs in Alzheimer's Disease

2003· review· en· W2131468827 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuropsychiatry · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEncoding (memory)StimulationPsychologyCognitive psychologyCognitionNeuroscienceDiseaseMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors describe the memory stimulation programs used in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and review their efficacy. Visual imagery, errorless learning, dyadic approaches, spaced retrieval techniques, encoding specificity with cognitive support at retrieval, and external memory aids were the memory stimulation programs used alone or in combination in AD. Preliminary evidence suggests that the errorless learning, spaced retrieval, and vanishing cues techniques and the dyadic approach, used alone or in combination, are efficacious in stimulating memory in patients with 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.426
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