MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150454863 · doi:10.1017/s1355617704102087

Retrograde amnesia in patients with rupture and surgical repair of anterior communicating artery aneurysms

2004· article· en· W2150454863 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Margaret O’Connor, Ginette Lafleche

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the International Neuropsychological Society · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Mental HealthAtlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
KeywordsAmnesiaRetrograde amnesiaAnterior communicating arteryAnterograde amnesiaMemory disorderMedicineAnterior cerebral arteryAutobiographical memoryCognitive disorderPsychologyAudiologyCognitionSurgeryCardiologyPsychiatryCognitive impairmentMiddle cerebral arteryAneurysmIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The retrograde amnesia of patients with memory loss related to rupture and surgical repair of anterior communicating artery (ACoA) aneurysms is compared with the retrograde amnesia of temporal amnesic patients and nonamnesic control participants. Two tests which focus on popular culture but which differ according to extent of news exposure and the cognitive processes necessary for task performance were used to measure retrograde memory. ACoA patients demonstrated more significant retrograde memory problems than did nonamnesic controls; however, the severity and pattern of their memory loss was less severe than that seen in association with temporal amnesia. Different factors influenced the remote memory loss of respective groups: ACoA patients' problems were related to impaired lexical retrieval whereas temporal amnesic patients had problems secondary to both retrieval and storage deficits.

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)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations15
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the International Neuropsychological SocietySame topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207