Visual memory test equal to commonly used verbal memory test in predicting tau in the medial temporal lobe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The Aggie Figures Learning Test (AFLT) is a visual memory assessment tool, constructed as an analog to the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT). The AFLT includes three sequences of abstract drawings as stimuli –a primary set which is repeated across five trials, an interference set, and a recognition set. After about twenty minutes, the test assesses free delayed recall (DR) and delayed recognition of the learned material. This test is very similar to the RAVLT in terms of administration; therefore, the present study will evaluate whether the predictive value of DR scores from both tests is comparable in relation to Tau PET. Method Tau PET ([18F]‐MK6240) was acquired for 130 individuals for analysis involving only AFLT, 139 for analysis involving only RAVLT, and 127 individuals for analysis including both AFLT and RAVLT. Demographic data is shown on Tables 1, 2, and 3. MRI were segmented into probabilistic grey (GM) and white (WM) maps, non‐linearly registered to the ADNI template using Dartel and smoothed with an 8mm FWHM gaussian kernel. Voxel‐wise linear regression models were applied, using VoxelStats, with Tau PET as the dependent variable and either DR AFLT or DR RAVLT as predictors. We ran three analyses where one included both DR scores. Additionally, we corrected for age, sex, diagnosis, APOE, and amyloid load. All other variables that were tested did not significantly contribute to predict Tau PET. Result We found negative associations between tau binding in the medial temporal lobe and both DR scores when looking at each of them separately. More importantly, we found that DR AFLT scores lose their predictive value when including DR RAVLT in the same model. Conclusion Our results support the use of both tests interchangeably when testing memory in elderly populations, even though they tap into two different modalities. This piece of evidence confirms what was reported by the authors who published the original AFLT article. Nonetheless, that article dealt with a sample whose demographics and clinical presentation strongly differed from those of our sample.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".