Changes in Spatial Working Memory in Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by irreversible airflow limitation and is often accompanied by cognitive impairment. Little is known about the working memory of COPD patients. The aim of the study is to evaluate the spatial working memory of COPD patients using the classical visuospatial working memory neuropsychological paradigms. This was a retrospective study of patients with COPD who were evaluated for neurocognitive functions between February and December 2018 at Hefei Second People’s Hospital. Healthy controls (HC) were included. The neuropsychological tests included the Beijing Version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test (MoCA), digit span test (DS), Chinese Auditory Verbal Learning Test (CAVLT), Stroop test, and Verbal Fluency Test (VFT). The COPD group performed worse in MoCA (22.3 ± 4.5 vs. 26.1 ± 2.9, P < 0.001), Stroop interference test (44.2 ± 16.9 vs. 36.8 ± 10.3, P = 0.038), and VFT (12.9 ± 2.8 vs. 15.3 ± 4.7, P = 0.021) vs. the HC group. Compared with the HC group, COPD patients had statistically significant differences with respect to 0‐back RT (657 ± 46 vs. 578 ± 107, P = 0.001), 1‐back accuracy (41.8 ± 12.1 % vs. 81.5 ± 18.1 % , P < 0.001), 1‐back RT (592 ± 75 vs. 431 ± 138, P < 0.001), 2‐back accuracy (31.4 ± 9.9 % vs. 68.1 ± 16.6 % , P < 0.001), and 2‐back RT (563 ± 79 vs. 455 ± 153, P = 0.002). Only PaO 2 was independently associated with 0‐back RT ( B = 0.992 ± 0.428, P = 0.028) and 1‐back ACC ( B = 0.003 ± 0.001, P = 0.004). COPD patients exhibit impairment in working memory and executive function, but not in short‐ or long‐term memory. The impairment of working memory in a patient with COPD may be more due to integrate memory information rather than to memory information storage. COPD patients exhibit a frontal‐type cognitive decline.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".