MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2380475331 · doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.01.1314

Neuropsychological characteristics of individuals with mild cognitive impairment

2016· article· en· W2380475331 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Q. Wang, Yu Sheng

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Psychiatry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionNeuropsychologyCognitive impairmentPsychologyMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPopulationExecutive functionsAudiologyDementiaMemory impairmentNeuropsychological assessmentClinical psychologyMedicineDiseasePsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction As the population ages, cognitive impairment is prevalent among older adults and this may cause a huge burden to society. In order to take precautions effectively, we need to understand the characteristics of cognitive function of older adults, especially the individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Objectives To explore the characteristics of cognitive function changes in individuals with mild cognitive impairment. Methods A total of 108 individuals with MCI as MCI group and 108 volunteers as control group were recruited in the study. The age, gender and years of schooling were matched between the two groups. The cognitive function was evaluated with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Results Individuals of MCI group performed poorer than those of control group on executive function, attention, calculation, language and delayed memory. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The cognitive impairment in participants with MCI were delayed memory (100%), language (75%), executive function (66.7%), attention (44%) and calculation (20.4%). Conclusions The impairment of memory, language and executive function is the primary characteristics in individuals with MCI. Individuals with MCI have similar characteristics with early stage Alzheimer's disease (AD). We should take preventive measures to improve or delay AD. Disclosure of interest The authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Psychiatry→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→