Automated Indices of Clustering and Switching of Semantic Verbal Fluency in Parkinson’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Deficits in semantic verbal fluency (SVF) can stem from dysfunction of an executive control system and/or of semantic knowledge. Previous analyses of SVF responses were devised to characterize these two components including switching and mean cluster size (MCS) indices, but these rely on subjective experimenter-based assessment of the words' relatedness. To address this limitation, computational data-driven SVF indices have been developed. Our aim is to assess the validity and usefulness of these automated indices in the context of cognitive decline in Parkinson's disease (PD). METHODS: This is a retrospective study including 50 advanced PD patients with (n=28) or without (n=22) mild cognitive impairment (PD-MCI). We analyzed animal SVF outputs using an automated computational approach yielding switching, MCS, and cumulative relatedness (CuRel) indices. We compared these indices to the classic experimenter-based switching and MCS indices to assess concurrent validity, and against neuropsychological measures of executive functioning and semantic knowledge to assess construct validity. We also examined whether these indices were impaired and predicted PD-MCI. RESULTS: Automated switching indices, but not MCS or CuRel, showed evidence of concurrent and construct validity, and characterized individual difference in advanced PD. Automated switching indices also outperformed the experimenter-dependent index in predicting the presence of PD-MCI. CONCLUSION: Computational methods hold promise as fine-grained, unbiased indices reflecting the executive component of SVF, but none of the methods provided valid measures of semantic knowledge in PD. Our data also confirm that SVF are not adequate tests of semantic memory in patients with executive dysfunction such as PD. (JINS, 2018, 24, 1047-1056).
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".