MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Visual Event-Related Potentials in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer’s Disease: A Literature Review

2018· review· en· W2807781025 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Alzheimer Research · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of WaterlooBruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsP3bDementiaNeuropsychologyCognitionPsychologyAudiologyElectroencephalographyEvent-related potentialCognitive declineDiseaseAlzheimer's diseaseP3aMedicineNeurosciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cognitive deficits are correlated with increasing age and become more pronounced for people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia caused by Alzheimer's disease (AD). Conventional methods to diagnose cognitive decline (i.e., neuropsychological testing and clinical judgment) can lead to false positives. Tools such as electroencephalography (EEG) offer more refined, objective measures that index electrophysiological changes associated with healthy aging, MCI, and AD. OBJECTIVE: We sought to review the EEG literature to determine whether visual event-related potentials (ERPs) can distinguish between healthy aging, MCI, and AD. METHOD: We searched Medline and PyscInfo for articles published between January 2005 and April 2018. Articles were considered for review if they included participants aged 60+ who were healthy older adults or people with MCI and AD, and examined at least one visually elicited ERP component. RESULTS: Our search revealed 880 records, of which 34 satisfied the inclusion criteria. All studies compared cognitive function between at least two of the three groups (healthy older adults, MCI, and AD). The most consistent findings related to the P100 and the P3b; while the P100 showed no differences between groups, the P3b showed declines in amplitude in MCI and AD. CONCLUSION: Visually elicited ERPs can offer insight into the cognitive processes that decline in MCI and AD. The P3b may be useful in identifying older adults who may develop MCI and AD, and more research should examine the sensitivity and specificity of this component when diagnosing MCI and AD.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.170
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it