Numerical activities of daily living in adults with neurofibromatosis type 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to identify the mathematical domains affected in adults with neurofibromatosis 1 (NF1) and the impact of the numerical difficulties on the patients' activities of daily living. METHODS: We assessed 28 adult patients with NF1 and 28 healthy control participants. All participants completed the standardised battery of numerical activities of daily living along with clinical batteries of cognitive (Mini-Mental State Examination) and daily functioning (instrumental activities of daily living). The group comparisons of the performance on numerical activities of daily living were carried out using t-test correcting for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: The results showed that the NF1 group performed worse than controls in written subtractions, written multiplication, multiplication principles and digit comprehension (dot counting) tasks. Importantly, no significant differences in numerical ecological tasks were found between patients and controls, suggesting a possible use of compensatory strategies in daily living abilities in spite of calculation deficits. CONCLUSION: The findings indicate that NF1 affects calculation but not the basic comprehension or representation of numbers in adult patients. These data have important implications for designing cognitive interventions tailored to the cognitive profile of individuals with NF1.
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 | 0.002 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".