MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142966365 · doi:10.1017/s1355617707070336

Prospective, declarative, and nondeclarative memory in young adults with spina bifida

2007· article· en· W2142966365 on OpenAlexaff
Maureen Dennis, DERRYN JEWELL, James M. Drake, TALAR MISAKYAN, Brenda J. Spiegler, Ross Hetherington, Fred Gentili, Marcia A. Barnes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the International Neuropsychological Society · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Functions and Memory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphSickKids FoundationToronto Western HospitalHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsSpina bifidaProspective memoryPsychologyEpisodic memoryCognitionDeclarative memorySemantic memoryAudiologyCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscienceMedicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The consequences of congenital brain disorders for adult cognitive function are poorly understood. We studied different forms of memory in 29 young adults with spina bifida meningomyelocele (SBM), a common and severely disabling neural tube defect. Nondeclarative and semantic memory functions were intact. Working memory was intact with low maintenance and manipulation requirements, but impaired on tasks demanding high information maintenance or manipulation load. Prospective memory for intentions to be executed in the future was impaired. Immediate and delayed episodic memory were poor. Memory deficits were exacerbated by an increased number of lifetime shunt revisions, a marker for unstable hydrocephalus. Memory status was positively correlated with functional independence, an important component of quality of 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations42
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the International Neuropsychological SocietySame topicCognitive Functions and MemoryFrench-language works237,207