Central Cognitive Processing Speed Is an Early Marker of Huntington's Disease Onset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Several studies have suggested that cognitive processing speed may be useful for assessing early cognitive change in premanifest Huntington's disease (HD); however, current measures lack the ability to control for the effects of motor dysfunction commonly found in HD. The Computerized Test of Information Processing (CTiP) is a rapidly administered computerized tool that allows for the examination of central cognitive processing speed by using motor‐corrected scores to account for motor dysfunction. Objective To examine central cognitive processing speed as an early marker of HD onset using the CTiP. Methods The CTiP and other measures were administered to 102 HD gene carriers and 55 healthy adults (HA). Gene carriers included presymptomatic HD (pre‐HD; n = 33), prodromal HD (pro‐HD; ie, individuals close to disease onset; n = 23), and mild–moderate HD (HD; n = 46). Results The HD group performed significantly slower than all other groups (HA, pre‐HD, and pro‐HD) on most subtests ( P s < .05). Moreover, the pro‐HD group performed significantly slower than the HA group on both motor‐corrected subtests ( P s < 0.05). Effect sizes associated with significant group differences between the pro‐HD and HA groups on motor‐corrected CTiP subtests ( d = 0.73 and 0.84) were similar to effect sizes associated with group differences on the Symbol Digit Modalities Test ( d = .82) and other traditional cognitive assessments (Montreal Cognitive Assessment, d = .75; Mini‐Mental State Examination, d = .84). Conclusions The CTiP may be a useful marker of deficits in central cognitive processing speed in individuals close to manifest onset of HD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".