Cognitive complaint in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whereas the presence of a subjective memory complaint is a central criteria for mild cognitive impairment (MCI), little work has been done to empirically measure its nature and severity. The Self-Evaluation Questionnaire (QAM) assessed memory complaints relative to 10 domains of concrete activities of daily life in 68 persons with MCI, 26 persons with Alzheimer's disease (AD), and 81 healthy older adults. In addition, a neuropsychological battery was administered to assess whether subjective complaints were linked to actual cognitive performance. The findings indicate that individuals with MCI report more memory complaints than controls for a range of specific materials/circumstances. MCI and AD individuals did not differ in their level of memory complaints. Correlational analyses indicated that a higher level of memory complaints relative to conversations and to movies and books were associated with a higher level of objective cognitive deficits in persons with MCI but not in AD. Furthermore, complaints increased in parallel with global cognitive deficits in MCI. These results suggest that persons with MCI report more memory complaints than healthy older controls, but only in specific domains and circumstances, and that anosognosia is more characteristic of the demented than of the MCI phase of Alzheimer's disease.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".