Memory and executive impairment in schizophrenia: comparison with frontal and temporal brain damage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although poor neuropsychological test performance is well documented in schizophrenia, how closely it resembles that seen in patients with brain damage in terms of cognitive failures in daily life and stability over time has been little studied. METHOD: Thirty patients with chronic schizophrenia, 24 patients with frontal or temporal brain damage and 30 healthy controls were given a battery of memory and executive tests. Carers of the two patient groups also completed questionnaires rating memory and executive failures in daily life. Testing was repeated 6 weeks later. RESULTS: The schizophrenia and the brain-damaged patients were significantly impaired on most, but not all tests. The degree of carer-rated memory or executive failure was similar in the two groups, but the schizophrenia patients were rated as having significantly more executive failures than memory failures, whereas the brain-damaged patients showed the reverse pattern. Both groups of patients showed similar consistency of performance across sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Neuropsychological impairment in schizophrenia resembles that seen in patients with brain damage, not only in terms of overall severity, but also in terms of stability and the degree to which poor test performance translates into cognitive failures in daily life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".