No Common Factor Underlying Decline of Visual Abilities in Mild Cognitive Impairment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recent work has shown an association between cognitive and visual impairments and two main theories were advanced, namely the sensory deprivation and the common cause theories. Most studies considered only basic visual functions such as visual acuity or visual field size and evaluated the association with dementia. OBJECTIVES: To reconcile between these theories and to test the link between visual and cognitive decline in mildly cognitive impaired people. METHODS: We employed a battery of 19 visual tasks on 39 older adults with mild cognitive impairment and 91 without any evidence of cognitive decline, as measured by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. RESULTS: Our results show a strong association between visual impairment and mild cognitive impairment. In agreement with previous results with younger and healthy older adults, we found also only weak correlations between most tests in older adults with mild cognitive impairment. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that visual and cognitive abilities decline simultaneously, but they do so independently across visual and cognitive functions and across participants.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it