Clinical Utility of the Envelope Task in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Prospective memory (PM) is a cognitive function defined as the ability to perform an intention at an appropriate moment in the future. In the aging population, PM is essential for maintaining independent daily living. Introduced as a simple and quick way to assess PM in clinical settings, the envelope task has to date received very limited empirical and practical interest. METHODS: The present study investigated the task's clinical utility in detecting PM impairment in a sample composed of 49 healthy older adults (OA), 41 patients with Alzheimer's disease, and 64 individuals with amnestic and nonamnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) of heterogeneous etiology: 17 of idiopathic nature, 20 presenting an idiopathic rapid-eye movement sleep behaviour disorder, and 27 patients diagnosed with idiopathic Parkinson's disease. RESULTS: The envelope task was highly sensitive and specific in discriminating Alzheimer's disease patients from OA. Although it was specific in distinguishing MCI individuals from OA, its sensitivity was modest, especially in patients presenting a nonamnestic MCI subtype. CONCLUSIONS: Given its high specificity and simple low-cost administration procedure, the envelope task is a promising instrument for clinicians who seek to rapidly assess PM impairment in their daily practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".