FACES TEST - SU UTILIDAD EN LA EVALUACIÓN NEUROPSICOLÓGICA DE LA DEMENCIA FRONTOTEMPORAL VARIANTE FRONTAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduccion y Objetivos: Se han reportado alteraciones en Teoria de la Mente (TdM) y en el reconocimiento facial de emociones basicas en la variante frontal de la Demencia Frontotemporal (DFTvf). Objetivos: poner a prueba la utilidad del test Lectura de la Mente en el Rostro (LMR) en comparacion con Lectura de la Mente en los Ojos (LMO) para la evaluacion de DFTvf, y estudiar la relacion entre ambos. Material y Metodos: Se estudiaron 25 pacientes con DFTvf. Pruebas de Cognicion Social: a.- LMO, en la que, a traves de la TdM, deben reconocerse estados emocionales complejos; b.- LMR, en la que deben reconocerse estados mentales emocionales basicos y complejos. Se llevo a cabo un estudio multiple de casos aislados. Resultados: Se encontro correlacion significativa entre LMO y LMR (p= 0,03), y doble disociacion entre ambas pruebas (7 pacientes con alteracion de LMO y conservacion de LMR y 3 pacientes con la disociacion complementaria). Conclusiones: El hallazgo de correlaciones entre dichas pruebas indica que ambas se afectan en los pacientes con DFTvf, resultando utiles en la evaluacion de esta demencia. El hallazgo de disociaciones indica que cada prueba evalua procesos parcialmente independientes: LMR evalua mas especificamente emociones basicas, mientras que LMO evalua TdM. Palabras clave Evaluacion Emociones TdM DFTvf ABSTRACT READING THE MIND IN THE FACE - ITS UTILITY IN THE NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE FRONTAL VARIANT OF FRONTOTEMPORAL DEMENTIA Introduction and Objective: Alterations in Theory of Mind (ToM) and in facial recognition of basic emotions have been reported in the frontal variant of Frontotemporal Dementia (fvFTD). Objectives: to test the utility of the Reading the Mind in the Face test (RMF) compared to the Reading the Mind in the Eyes test (RME), in the fvDFT assessment, and study the relationship between them. Methods and Materials: 25 patients with fvFTD were studied. Social Cognition tests: a.- RME, where, through ToM, complex emotional mental states must be recognised; b.- RMF, where basic and complex emotional mental states must be recognised. A multiple study of isolated cases were performed. Results: There was significant correlation between RME and RMF (p=0,03) and double dissociation between both tests (7 patients with alteration in RME and preservation in RMF and 3 patients with the complementary dissociation) Conclusion: The correlations between these tests indicate that they are affected in fvFTD patients, being useful in this condition’s assessment. The dissociations indicate that each test assesses partially independent processes: RMF assesses more specifically basic emotions, while RME assesses ToM. Key words Assessment Emotions ToM fvFTD
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".