TeLPI Performance in Subjects With Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
APA guidelines for the evaluation of age-related cognitive decline and dementia emphasize the need for baseline (premorbid) data against which current performance can be compared. As this information rarely exists, clinicians must rely on instruments especially designed for estimation of premorbid abilities. No such instrument was available in Portugal until the development of the TeLPI, an irregular words oral reading test. This study aims to examine TeLPI's validity as a measure of premorbid ability in the spectrum of aging cognitive decline, from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to moderate Alzheimer disease (AD), by the analysis of its stability in normal versus impaired samples. A total of 104 patients, classified into 2 clinical groups, MCI (n=53) and probable mild to moderate AD (n=51), were compared with a group of cognitively healthy controls (C_MCI: n=53; C_AD: n=51) and matched for sex, age, education, and residence. As expected, the Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment results were significantly different between the groups (AD<MCI<controls), reflecting the severity of cognitive impairment. TeLPI median scores of controls, MCI, and probable AD patients were comparable after correcting for years of education, revealing no significant effect of cognitive impairment on TeLPI performance, and suggesting its validity for estimating premorbid intelligence in subjects with cognitive decline and 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".