MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136720896 · doi:10.1093/geronb/gbab051

Reaction Time Intraindividual Variability Reveals Inhibitory Deficits in Single- and Multiple-Domain Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment

2021· article· en· W3136720896 on OpenAlexafffund
Ricky Chow, Rahel Rabi, Shahier Paracha, Brandon P. Vasquez, Lynn Hasher, Claude Alain, Nicole D. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journals of Gerontology Series B · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBaycrest Hospital
FundersAlzheimer Society
KeywordsCognitive impairmentAudiologyInhibitory controlCognitionInhibitory postsynaptic potentialResponse inhibitionPsychologyEpisodic memoryMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI), a prodromal stage of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, is characterized by episodic memory impairment. Recent evidence has shown inhibitory control deficits in aMCI, but the extent of these deficits across inhibitory domains (i.e., response inhibition and interference control) and aMCI subtypes (i.e., single vs multiple domain) remains unclear. Few studies have included reaction time intraindividual variability (RT IIV) in these efforts. The aim of this study was to compare response inhibition and interference control between aMCI subtypes using measures of accuracy, mean RT, and RT IIV. METHODS: We report data from 34 individuals with single-domain aMCI (sdaMCI, 66-86 years), 20 individuals with multiple-domain aMCI (mdaMCI, 68-88 years), and 52 healthy controls (HC, 64-88 years) who completed tasks of response inhibition (Go-NoGo) and interference control (Flanker). Group differences in accuracy, mean RT, and RT IIV were examined for both tasks. RESULTS: Individuals with mdaMCI had higher RT IIV than the other groups on both tasks. In RT IIV, we observed an interference control deficit in mdaMCI and sdaMCI relative to healthy controls, a finding not observed through accuracy or mean RT. DISCUSSION: RT IIV may detect subtle differences in inhibition deficits between aMCI subtypes that may not be evident with conventional behavioral measures. Findings support the supplementary use of RT IIV when assessing early executive function deficits.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journals of Gerontology Series BSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207