An examination of semantic performance in mild cognitive impairment progressors and nonprogressors.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a risk factor for developing Alzheimer's disease (AD), and about half of older people with MCI will progress to AD within the next 5 years. The aim of the present study was to compare the semantic performance of MCI progressors (MCI-p) and nonprogressors (MCI-np). The hypothesis was that MCI-p would present with poorer semantic performance relative to MCI-np at baseline, indicating that semantic deficits may increase the risk of future decline toward AD. METHOD: Fifty-six MCI participants (aged 65-89) from the Consortium for Early Identification of Alzheimer's Disease-Quebec study were analyzed, with 18 progressing and 38 remaining stable over 2 years. Analysis of covariance assessed their initial semantic and nonsemantic cognitive performance, and mixed analyses of variance gauged longitudinal patterns of cognitive decline at the 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: In the semantic domain, MCI-p performed significantly worse than MCI-np at baseline on two semantic tests (category fluency and object decision). In other cognitive domains, MCI-p performed worse than MCI-np on a test of executive functions (cognitive flexibility) but showed similar performance on a test of episodic memory. There were no significant differences between groups in the rates of progression on semantic tests over the 2-year period, but a steeper decline was observed in MCI-p at follow-up on tests of global cognition, episodic memory, and processing speed. CONCLUSION: This suggest that MCI patients who present with semantic memory impairment in addition to episodic memory impairment are at greater risk of future progression to AD. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".