MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326157670 · doi:10.1177/2167702613504094

Impaired Decision Making in Alzheimer’s Disease

2013· article· en· W2326157670 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Psychological Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyHappinessIowa gambling taskTask (project management)DiseaseExecutive functionsAlzheimer's diseaseCognitionClinical psychologyAudiologyCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryMedicineInternal medicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To assess whether the decline of decision-making processes in people diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is explained by the use of an inappropriate analytic strategy induced by their high level of uncertainty about their ability, we used happiness induction to activate an appropriate heuristic processing of information. Healthy older adults and AD patients performed the Iowa Gambling Task either in a standard condition or after viewing a funny film clip. Although AD patients had impaired performances in the standard condition, the happiness condition significantly increased AD patient performance level compared with that of the control subgroups. Additional analyses showed that uncertainty levels were reduced in happy AD patients and that performances in the Iowa Gambling Task were not due to impairment in executive or memory functions. We suggest that higher uncertainty levels in patients with mild AD, which induce an inappropriate analytic strategy, can be reduced through emotional remediation techniques.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.504
GPT teacher head0.566
Teacher spread0.062 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it