MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132416299 · doi:10.1037//0894-4105.16.3.400

Working memory performance predicts subjective cognitive complaints in HIV infection.

2002· article· en· W2132416299 on OpenAlexaff
Chris Bassel, Sean B. Rourke, Mark Halman, Mary Lou Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychomotor learningWorking memoryCognitionPsychologyNeuropsychologyRecallVerbal learningDepression (economics)Effects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceVerbal memoryDementiaClinical psychologyAudiologyPsychiatryMedicineCognitive psychologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors examined the contribution of working memory performance to subjective cognitive complaints in HIV infection beyond the influence of depressive symptoms. Thirty-six adults with HIV infection were administered neuropsychological (NP) tests of working memory, complex psychomotor efficiency, verbal learning, delayed recall, and questionnaires measuring depressive symptoms and cognitive complaints. Working memory performance, depression scores, and complex psychomotor efficiency were most strongly associated with self-reported cognitive complaints, whereas verbal learning scores and simple psychomotor efficiency showed more modest associations. Regression analyses revealed working memory performance to be the strongest NP predictor of self-reported cognitive complaints, comparable with depression scores in the amount of variance explained. These results suggest that working memory performance may be well suited to reflect how patients function in their everyday environment.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations45
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychologySame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207