MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415546685 · doi:10.1177/2055217316653150

Distractibility in multiple sclerosis: The role of depression

2016· article· en· W2415546685 on OpenAlexaff
Viral Patel, Lisa A.S. Walker, Nathan Herrmann, Richard H. Swartz, Anthony Feinstein

Bibliographic record

VenueMultiple Sclerosis Journal - Experimental Translational and Clinical · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa HospitalHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoCarleton UniversitySunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)AnxietyPsychologyHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleMultiple sclerosisCognitionClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study assesses the influence of depression and anxiety on the effects of cognitive distracters in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Participants completed computerized versions of the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (c-SDMT) with ( n = 51) and without ( n = 51) auditory distracters. Based on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), 29 (28.4%) and 51 (50%) participants were classified as depressed or anxious, respectively. A regression analysis revealed that depression ( p = 0.034), not anxiety ( p = 0.264), further impaired performance on the c-SDMT, particularly in the presence of distracters. These results suggest that distracter effects are influenced by depression more than anxiety. Given that distracters are ubiquitous in real-world environments, their use in a cognitive assessment adds to the ecological validity of the results.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultiple Sclerosis Journal - Experimental Translational and ClinicalSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207