MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020864904 · doi:10.1136/jnnp-2019-bnpa.28

28 Using experimental simulation of dementia to understand functional cognitive disorders

2019· article· en· W3020864904 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brendan Sargent, Laura McWhirter, Jon Stone, Alan Carson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaComputer scienceCognitionPsychologyMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives/Aims Symptoms and signs of functional (psychogenic) motor and sensory disorder often depend on the individual’s ideas about symptoms rather than on the rules of anatomy and physiology. The possibility that functional cognitive symptoms might similarly reflect beliefs about cognitive disorders such as dementia has not been widely explored. We aimed to assess the ideas and beliefs of healthy non- medical adults about symptoms of mild dementia. Methods Healthy adult volunteers aged 18-27, without medical training, underwent a 25 minute assessment during which they were asked to imagine that they in fact had symptoms of ‘mild or early stage dementia’. The assessment included the Montreal Cognitive Examination (MOCA), examination of gait, digit span, the Luria 3-step test, interlocking finger test of parietal function, and the ‘coin in hand’ forced-choice test. Close family history of dementia and specific perceptions about dementia were recorded. Results In 50 participants, mean age 22, mean MOCA score was 16 (SD 5.5, range 5 – 26). Summed responsetime ranged from 5 minutes 13 seconds to 14 minutes 12 seconds (mean 8 minutes 4 seconds, SD 1 minute 59 seconds). Delayed recall was the most frequently failed item (100%) followed by letter vigilance (86%), forward 5-digit span (82%) and clock-drawing (82%). Cube drawing was the least frequently failed item (42%). 26% failed forward 3-digit span and 36% failed reverse 2-digit span. On the ‘coin in hand’ test, 30% scored at (22%) or below (8%) the level of chance. 18% successfully completed the Luria 3-step test. 76% successfully copied 3 or 4 interlocking finger positions. 48% had abnormal gait. Inconsistent response patterns and difficulty following and remembering instructions was common. There were no significant differences between those with and without a family history of dementia. Conclusions Cognitively healthy young adults simulating mild dementia perform similarly to older adults with mild dementia, demonstrating beliefs that dementia is associated with significant global impairment, including of attention and motor function, with relatively poor performance on letter vigilance, but preservation of cube drawing. Inconsistent response patterns were common. Contrary to expectation, family history of dementia did not influence performance. Digit span showed particular promise as a bedside test. Further investigation will establish whether similar patterns of results are produced in individuals with functional cognitive symptoms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsFrench-language works237,207