NCOG-04. IMPAIRED FLUID COGNITION IN PATIENTS WITH GLIOMA OF THE FRONTAL AND PARIETAL LOBES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with gliomas are known to have baseline cognitive impairment. However, the characteristics of these cognitive effects have not been well defined. Intellectual ability can be dichotomized into fluid and crystallized components. The objective of this pilot study was to assess the difference between measures of fluid and crystalized cognition in patients with frontal and parietal brain tumours. Seven healthy control subjects and ten patients with gliomas of the frontal or parietal lobes, completed all tests within the NIH Toolbox Cognitive Battery (NTCB). The NTCB consists of seven tasks: Dimensional Change Card Sort, Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention, Picture Sequence Memory, Picture Vocabulary, Oral Reading Recognition, Pattern Comparison Processing Speed, and List Sorting Working Memory. From these tests, three composite scores are calculated. The Fluid cognition composite score is comprised of the Flanker, Dimensional Change Card Sort, Picture Sequence Memory, List Sorting, and Pattern Comparison tasks. The Crystallized Cognition Composite Score is comprised of the Picture Vocabulary Test and the Oral Reading Recognition Test. These tests are validated, normed, and corrected for age and education. Unpaired two sample t-test was used for statistical analysis. There was no statistically significant difference between the overall composite cognitive score in patients compared to controls (49.10 vs 57.29; p=0.21). However, compared to controls, patients demonstrate lower scores of fluid cognition (41.34 vs 57.57; p=0.036), whereas there was no difference in measures of crystalized cognition (57.34 vs 54.94; p=0.61). Within groups, patients had significantly lower scores of fluid cognition compared to crystalized cognition (p=0.021). Control subjects demonstrated no difference between these measures (p=0.55). Patients with gliomas of the frontal and parietal lobes demonstrate impaired fluid cognition with preserved crystallized cognition. This may be due to differential disruption in the underlying neural networks sub-serving these abilities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".