Cognitive dysfunction and psychopathology: a cohort study of adults with intellectual developmental disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment of intellectual developmental disorders (IDD) is determined by several different combinations of specific cognitive alterations. People with IDD present a rate of mental health problems that is up to 4 times higher than that of the general population. Despite this, the relationship between specific cognitive dysfunctions and co-occurring mental disorders has not been adequately studied. The aim of the present paper is to investigate the association between specific cognitive dysfunctions and specific psychiatric symptoms and syndromes in people with IDD. METHODS: One hundred and twenty adults with mild to moderate IDD living in residential facilities underwent a clinical and instrumental assessment for specific cognitive and psychopathological features. RESULTS: Participants with IDD and ASD have significantly lower scores compared to those without respect to who has not the diagnosis on the Processing Speed Index (PSI) and Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) on the WAIS-IV and higher time scores on the TMT A. Moreover, there is a significant association between years of hospitalisation and TMT B and TMT B A time scores; the longer a participant with IDD was hospitalised, the worse their performance on the TMT. Although not statistically significant, many psychopathological clusters showed substantial cognitive profiles. CONCLUSIONS: Although further research is needed, neuropsychological and IQ tests scores seem to be differently associated to various psychopathological conditions co-occurring with IDD, and with ASD especially. Cognitive assessment seems to support diagnosis and treatment of psychopathological co-occurrences in persons with IDD, also in consideration of indirect implications including a better knowledge of the patient's characteristics beyond IQ deficit.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".