MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2584366094 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2007.04.075

O1–05–08: Memory decline in older adults is predicted by focused / selective attention

2007· article· en· W2584366094 on OpenAlexaff
Ángeles García, Alisha Hemraj, Salman Klar, Letty Lau, Kelly Thompson, Tyler Chestney, Andrew G. Day

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaStroop effectPsychologyClinical Dementia RatingReceiver operating characteristicCalifornia Verbal Learning TestCognitionCognitive declineClinical psychologyAudiologyVerbal learningMedicinePsychiatryInternal medicineCognitive impairmentDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Memory decline is the most common cognitive complaint among older adults and the core feature of Alzheimer's dementia. We have investigated the influence and relation of focused / selective attention on memory decline in older adults with normal cognitive function at baseline. Cohort study of 281 older adults (65 years and older) living independently in the community, followed every 2–2.5 years for up to 7.5 years. Battery of cognitive tests included: Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE), Stroop Neuropsychological Screening Inventory, Mattis Dementia Rating Scale (DRS) and California Verbal learning Test (CVLT). Dementia or amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) were diagnosed by standard criteria. Analysis included Spearman correlations, Mann-Whitney, T-tests, Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) and linear regression (REG procedure). CVLT scores were reduced by factor analysis. We obtained information in 225 participants at last follow-up, 181 had full cognitive testing completed, and in 44 information was obtained by telephone interview, from their families or family doctors. Fifty-six were lost to follow-up. Twenty-two participants developed dementia and 21 MCI. Stroop scores showed a significant area under the curve (AUC=0.76, SE=0.07) for dementia diagnosis. A Stroop score <60/112 had the following properties to predict dementia: Sensitivity 41%, Specificity 95%, Positive predictive value 53% and Negative predictive value 93%. The relative risk of developing dementia if the Stroop score at baseline was <60 was 7.2 (95% CI, 3.6–14.4; p<0.001) compared to persons with a Stroop score of 60 or higher. Correlations between cognitive scores from different psychometric tests at baseline and at follow-up were significant (p<.05 to p<.001). There was a significant correlation between each subject's psychometric tests scores at baseline and at last follow-up. Stroop scores at baseline predicted the CVLT factor1 and the DRS score at last follow-up over and above (p=<.01, p<.01, respectively) the effects of the baseline CVLT factor1 and DRS, respectively . However, CVLT factor1 or DRS score at baseline did not predict the last Stroop score. These results show that focused attention can predict future memory decline and dementia years before it occurs, suggesting that deficits of focused attention might precede memory decline.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.284 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→