Word-Reading Thresholds in Alzheimer Disease and Mild Memory Loss: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether subjects with early Alzheimer Disease (AD) or Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) would demonstrate significant abnormalities on tests of word reading threshold (WRT), spatial contrast sensitivity (SCS), and color discrimination (CD). METHODS: Prospective cohort study of 13 AD subjects, 13 subjects with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), and 12 healthy elderly normal controls (ENC). CD was determined using the Farnsworth D-15 method. SCS was tested using a Vistech photographic chart. For WRT determination, pattern-masked words were presented successively at increasing target durations. The threshold was determined as the target duration at which 50% of the words were read. RESULTS: The mean number of errors in Color Discrimination and Spatial Contrast Sensitivity did not differ significantly among the three groups. WRT was significantly longer in the AD group (122.6 +/- 70.8 ms) in comparison with ENC group (53.8 +/- 15.9 ms) (p < 0.001). A WRT threshold limit of 85 msec correctly classified 11/12 ENC subjects and 10/13 AD subjects. Four of the 13 MCI subjects also exceeded this threshold and all four progressed to AD within 2 year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Word Reading Threshold determination discriminates mild AD subjects from ENC, and correlates with severity of cognitive impairment. It may have diagnostic and prognostic utility in early AD and MCI subjects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".