Executive function deficits and medial temporal lobe atrophy in late-life depression and Alzheimer’s disease: a comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Alzheimer's disease (AD) and late-life depression (LLD) frequently exhibit executive function deficits (EFD) and medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA) as shared characteristics. The objective of this research was to examine the utility of the Trail Making Test (TMT) and the MTA scale in distinguishing between LLD and AD. Methods: A study of 100 patients, 50 with AD and 50 with LLD, was conducted using a cross-sectional design. The individuals were subjected to clinical evaluations to assess their level of depression and overall cognitive abilities, which included the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). We evaluated executive function deficits (EFD) through the use of the TMT, which includes both TMT-A and TMT-B. MTA was measured using magnetic resonance imaging. To evaluate the ability of TMT and MTA scale to distinguish between the two groups, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was utilized. To investigate the connections between MTA and neuropsychological measures, a correlation analysis was performed. Results: < 0.05). TMT-A and TMT-B both exhibited excellent discriminatory power between AD and LLD, achieving area under curve (AUC) values of 92.2 and 94.2%, respectively. In AD patients, there was a negative correlation between MMSE and MoCA scores and MTA scores, while in LLD patients, there was a positive correlation between time spent on TMT-A and GDS scores and MTA scores. Conclusion: AD patients experience more severe EFD and MTA than LLD patients. The differential diagnosis of AD and LLD can be aided by the useful tool known as TMT. It is important to acknowledge that TMT is capable of capturing only a fraction of the executive function, thus necessitating a cautious interpretation of research findings.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".