The impact of time and repeated exposure on famous person knowledge in amnestic mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Famous people knowledge has been shown to be impaired early in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI). However, the question of whether recently acquired knowledge is more impaired than remotely acquired knowledge remains a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to investigate the patterns of semantic memory impairment in aMCI and AD by investigating 2 factors that may influence the retrieval of such knowledge, namely remoteness and frequency of repetition of information over time. METHOD: Three groups (19 controls, 20 aMCI, and 20 AD patients) were compared on a test assessing general and specific biographical knowledge about famous people, where the period of acquired fame (remote vs. recent) and the type of fame (enduring vs. transient) were controlled for. RESULTS: Global performance of aMCI and AD patients was significantly poorer than that of controls. However, different patterns of recall were observed as a function of time and type of fame. A temporal gradient was found in both patient groups for enduring names but not for transient ones, whereby knowledge about remote enduring famous persons was better recalled. Patients were more impaired at questions assessing specific biographical knowledge (unique to an individual) than more general knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Tests of famous people knowledge offer a unique opportunity to investigate semantic deficits in aMCI and AD, because they make it possible to estimate the time at which memories were acquired, as well as the type of fame. Results are discussed in light of memory consolidation models. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".