The utility of neuropsychological process scores in verbal recall and verbal fluency in persons with or at risk for dementia: Data from COMPASS‐ND
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is considered a risk state for decline to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease (AD). By definition, individuals with SCD report concerns about changes in cognitive function but perform within normal limits on formal testing. This study examined whether neuropsychology process scores on tests of auditory learning and memory (the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, RAVLT) and semantic and phonemic oral fluency were able to distinguish subtle difficulties in cognition, over and above total scores. Method We used data from the Comprehensive Assessment of Neurodegeneration and Dementia (COMPASS‐ND) study to examine performance in 60 cognitively normal (CN) older adults with no cognitive complaints (mean age = 69 years; mean education = 16 years), 55 participants with SCD (age = 70; education = 17), 102 with MCI (age = 72; education = 16), and 47 with AD (age = 75; education = 15). Participants were matched on age and education, except for AD participants who were older. Age and education were co‐variates in all analyses. For the RAVLT, we examined delayed recall total scores, and process measures of primacy and recency recall on the second learning trial. For fluency, we examined total scores, and process measures of clustering, switching, word frequency, and age of acquisition. Result RAVLT: An item position by group interaction revealed that primacy scores better distinguished all participant groups (CU>SCD>MCI>AD) than delayed recall (CU = SCD = MCI>AD). The left subiculum hippocampal subfield volume was positively associated with primacy scores in the MCI group, controlling for intracranial volume and age. Oral fluency: Both phonemic and semantic total scores discriminated CN, MCI, and AD participants in a stepwise manner; there was a non‐significant trend for SCD participants to perform more poorly than CN. Process scores did not provide additional discrimination. Conclusion These findings indicate that primacy scores for episodic recall are sensitive to subtle memory deficits in SCD and may reflect hippocampal atrophy, supporting the clinical use of using serial position effects in the assessment of MCI and SCD. Learning Objective(s): Participants will learn about more detailed scoring methods for common neuropsychological tests, their sensitivity to subtle cognitive deficits in SCD, and their relationship with neuroanatomical structures.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".