Receptive Vocabulary and Cognition of Elderly People in Institutional Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Basic cognitive functions such as: alertness, working memory, long term memory and perception, as well as higher levels of cognitive functions like: speech and language, decision-making and executive functions are affected by aging processes. Relations between the receptive vocabulary and cognitive functioning, and the manifestation of differences between populations of elderly people based on the primary disease is in the focus of this study. AIM: To examine receptive vocabulary and cognition of elderly people with: verified stroke, dementia, verified stroke and dementia, and without the manifested brain disease. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 120 participants older than 65 years, living in an institution. A total of 26 variables was analyzed and classified into three groups: case history/anamnestic, receptive vocabulary assessment, and cognitive assessments. The interview with social workers, nurses and caregivers, as well as medical files were used to determine the anamnestic data. A Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA) was used for the assessment of cognition. In order to estimate the receptive vocabulary, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test was used. RESULTS: Mean raw score of receptive vocabulary is 161.58 (+-21:58 points). The best results for cognitive assessment subjects achieved on subscales of orientation, naming, serial subtraction, and delayed recall. Discriminative analysis showed the significant difference in the development of receptive vocabulary and cognitive functioning in relation to the primary disease of elderly people. The biggest difference was between subjects without manifested brain disease (centroid = 1.900) and subjects with dementia (centroid = -1754). CONCLUSION: There is a significant difference between elderly with stroke; dementia; stroke and dementia, and elderly people without manifested disease of the brain in the domain of receptive vocabulary and cognitive functioning. Variables of serial subtraction, standardized test results of receptive vocabulary, delayed recall, abstraction, orientation and vigilance successfully discriminate studied groups.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".