Cognitive profile in mild cognitive impairment with Lewy bodies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to elucidate the cognitive profile of patients with mild cognitive impairment with Lewy bodies (MCI-LB) and to compare it to that of patients with mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (MCI-AD). Methods: Subjects older than 60 years with probable MCI-LB (n = 60) or MCI-AD (n = 60) were recruited. All patients were tested with Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) to assess their global cognitive profile. Results: The MCI-AD and MCI-LB patients did not differ in total MMSE and MoCA scores. However, some sub-items in MMSE and MoCA were shown to be screening markers for differentiating MCI-LB from MCI-AD. In the visuoconstructive test, the total score and hands subitem score in the clock-drawing test were significantly lower in MCI-LB than in MCI-AD. As for the executive function, the 'animal fluency test', 'repeat digits backward test' and 'take paper by your right hand' in MMSE all showed lower scores in MCI-LB compared with MCI-AD. As for memory, 'velvet' and 'church' in MoCA and 'ball' and 'national flag' in MMSE had lower scores in MCI-AD than in MCI-LB. Conclusion: This study presents the cognitive profile of patients with MCI-LB. In line with the literature on Dementia with Lewy bodies, our results showed lower performance on tests for visuoconstructive and executive function, whereas memory remained relatively spared in the early period.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".