Cognitive profile of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (INPH)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Cognitive deficits in people with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (INPH) are thought to differ from Alzheimer’s dementia (AD) but this has not been systematically explored. Method We undertook a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Peer‐reviewed studies publishing new data, with defined diagnostic criteria for INPH, and using formal cognitive tools were included. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale. Weighted mean difference (WMD) in score was calculated using random‐effects meta‐analysis for cognitive tests used in at least 2 studies. We assessed heterogeneity using I2. Sensitivity analyses explored results according to global cognition. Result 13 studies met inclusion criteria. Participants with INPH had a pooled weighted MMSE score of 22.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 21.3‐23.9). Studies were divided into those that matched AD participants to INPH participants for global cognition or selected mild AD (n = 6) and those that did not (n = 7). Participants with INPH performed better on the Boston Naming Task across all studies (n = 2; WMD: 1.41; 95% CI: 0.50, 2.31; I2 47%). There were no significant differences in semantic or phonemic fluency, delayed verbal recall, digit span backwards or forwards, or constructional praxis between AD and INPH across all studies. However, sensitivity analyses examining INPH participants compared to mild or matched AD showed significantly worse performance in INPH for semantic (n = 3; WMD: ‐1.37; 95% CI: ‐2.19, ‐0.55; I2 0%) and phonemic fluency (n = 3; WMD: ‐5.18; 95% CI: ‐6.95, ‐3.41; I2 0%), and in the Frontal Assessment Battery (n = 3; WMD: ‐2.33 points; 95% CI: ‐3.30, ‐1.36; I2 0%). Worse performance was also seen on sensitivity analysis in digit span backward (MD: ‐0.70; 95% CI: ‐1.20, ‐0.20) and constructional praxis (MD: ‐0.50; 95% CI: ‐0.90, ‐0.10) but only 1 study was available for each test. Conclusion In this meta‐analysis, people with INPH tended to score within the mild dementia range on global cognitive testing. There were observable differences in cognitive profile between INPH and AD. People with INPH may have less aphasia but score significantly lower on tests of executive function than people with mild AD. These results could inform identification of INPH in memory services.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".