Cognitive Fluctuations and the Lucid Interval in Dementia: Implications for Testamentary Capacity.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lucid interval is a long-held legal concept widely accepted in case law as a possible means of countering a challenge to testamentary and related capacities. In parallel, the clinical phenomenon of cognitive fluctuations has been considered a common element of several neurodegenerative disorders (dementias), including Alzheimer Disease, but is especially prevalent in vascular dementia and dementia with Lewy bodies. In this article, we review the objective evidence for cognitive fluctuations in dementia and the implications for the validity of the legal notion of the lucid interval cited in recent case law. The literature on cognitive fluctuations in dementia shows that such fluctuations largely affect attention and alertness, rather than memory or the higher level executive functions that are essential components of testamentary capacity. Moreover, these fluctuations are small in magnitude and very short in duration. These findings cast doubt on the validity of the lucid interval and invite a critical rethinking of this legal concept as applied to will challenges involving testators with dementia.
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 | 0.011 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".