The Use of Executive Fluency Tasks to Detect Cognitive Impairment in Individuals with Subjective Cognitive Decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although evidence has indicated that subjective cognitive decline (SCD) may be an early sign of Alzheimer's disease (AD), the objectification of cognitive impairment in SCD is challenging, mainly due to the lack of sensitivity in assessment tools. The present study investigated the potential contribution of two verbal fluency tasks with high executive processing loads to the identification of cognitive impairment in SCD. METHODS: A total of 60 adults with SCD and 60 healthy controls (HCs) performed one free action (verb) fluency task and two fluency tasks with more executive processing load-an alternating fluency task and an orthographic constraint fluency task-and the results were compared. RESULT: In the free action fluency task, the performance of the participants with SCD and the HCs was similar. However, HCs performed significantly better than SCD in the alternating fluency task, which required mental flexibility, and the orthographic constraint fluency task, which required inhibition. DISCUSSION: The study findings suggest that verbal fluency tasks with high executive processing load could be useful in detecting cognitive deficits at the preclinical stage of AD. The inclusion of such tests in assessment batteries should be considered in order to improve the detection of subtle cognitive impairment in preclinical major neurocognitive disorder populations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".