Object Alternation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) using object alternation (OA) as a novel probe of cognition. This task was adopted from animal models and is sensitive to ventrolateral-orbitofrontal and medial frontal function in humans. OA was administered to bvFTD patients, normal controls, and a dementia control group with Alzheimer disease (AD). Two other frontal lobe measures adopted from animal models were administered: delayed response (DR) and delayed alternation (DA). Brain volumes were measured using the semiautomatic brain region extraction method. Compared with the normal controls, bvFTD patients were significantly impaired on OA and DR. For OA and DR, sensitivities and specificities were 100% and 51.5% (cutoff=22.5 errors) and 9.5% and 98% (cutoff=1.5 errors), respectively. Negative predictive value (NPV) for OA was 100% at all prevalence rates. Comparing AD with bvFTD, there were no significant differences on OA, DR, or DA. Nevertheless, positive predictive value (PPV) and NPV were good at all prevalence rates for OA (cutoff=36.5 errors) and DA (cutoff=6 errors); PPV was good for DR (cutoff=9 errors). Error scores above cutoffs favored diagnosis of AD. Performance on OA was significantly related to medial frontal gray matter atrophy. OA, together with DR and DA, may facilitate assessment of bvFTD as a novel probe of medial frontal function.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".