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
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".