Comparison of manual dexterity of people with Alzheimer’s disease and cognitively healthy older adults: The impact of cognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Alzheimer’s disease (AD) not only effects the cognitive level, but also leads to significant decline in motor skill. Manual dexterity emerges with the interaction of cognitive and motor processes and is seen as an important predictor of functional independence. The aim of this study was to compare manual dexterity in people with AD with healthy older adults and to investigate the effect of cognitive level on manual dexterity. Method The Nine Hole Peg Test (NHPT) was used for manual dexterity assessment. Cognitive function were assessed with Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Statistical analysis was performed by Mann Whitney U Test and regression analysis in SPSS 22.0 package program. Result Twenty nine people with AD (78.04±6.49, 48.27% female) and ten cognitively healthy older adult (74.8±7.22, 30% female) included study. NHPT results of the dominant hand were 31.87±7.33 sec. and 21.66±2.85 sec.; MoCA scores were 13.79±5.76 and 24.5±2.32, respectively, in the people with AD and cognitively healthy older adults. There was significant difference in NHPT results between groups (p<.001). Significant correlation was found between NHPT and MoCA (p<.001, r = .648). It was found that cognitive level significantly predicted manual dexterity (β = .648, R2 = .42, F [1,27] = 19.58, p<.001). Conclusion Manual dexterity in AD shows a significant decrease compared to the cognitively healthy older adults. In our study, it was shown that the decrease in manual dexterity occurs with the effect of cognition at a rate of 42%. Deteriorating manual dexterity with decreased cognition is likely to accelerate patients' withdrawal from activities of daily living. Also, rehabilitation programs that include activities for manual dexterity may slow down the process of participation restriction in AD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".