Sensory functions and Alzheimer's disease: a multi-disciplinary approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relations between sensory functions and Alzheimer's disease are still under-explored. To understand them better, the Fondation Médéric Alzheimer has brought together a multi-disciplinary expert group. Aristote's five senses must be enhanced by today's knowledge of proprioception, motor cognition and pain perception. When cognition breaks down, the person with dementia perceives the world around her with her sensory experience, yet is unable to integrate all this information to understand the context. The treatment of multiple sensory inputs by the brain is closely linked to cognitive processes. Sensory deficits reduce considerably the autonomy of people with dementia in their daily life and their relations with others, increase their social isolation and the risk of accidents. Professionals involved with neurodegenerative diseases remain poorly aware of sensory deficits, which can bias the results of cognitive tests. However, there are simple tools to detect these deficits, notably for vision, hearing and balance disorders, which can be corrected. Many interventions for cognitive rehabilitation or quality of life improvement are based on sensory functions. The environment of people with dementia must be adapted to become understandable, comfortable, safe and eventually therapeutic.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".