Associative Memory and Memory Complaints in People with First Episode of Depression: Use of the Face-Name Associative Memory Exam (FNAME)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Major depressive disorder (MDD) can lead to cognitive dysfunction. The objective is to assess associative episodic memory and subjective memory complaints in daily life in people with a first episode of depression (FED). Analytical observational design. Fifteen patients with FED mean age 50.20 (8.04) years and 15 healthy control (HCtrl) mean age 45.07 (8.64) years participants, both middle-aged adults, were assessed. The recruitment was from Mental Health Units in Mallorca, and this lasted between March 2021 to October 2022. DSM-5® diagnostic criteria and the Interna-tional Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) were used to diagnose depression. This study was an analytical, cross-sectional, prospective, observational design. The following cognitive tests were used for cognitive assessment: 1) an adapted version of the Face-Name Associative Memory Exam (FNAME-12A), 2) the daily life memory questionnaire (MFE-30), and 3) the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test (MoCA). People with FED showed a mean score of 43.33 (25.40) compared to the HCtrl 19.66 (10.12) significantly higher scores (p = .05) on the MFE-30, but there were no significant differences in the FNAME. Furthermore, no significant correlations were observed between sub-jective (MFE-30) and objective (FNAME) memory performance. We observed a dissociation be-tween FED patients’ perception of memory difficulties and their objectively measured memory. These results support the idea that patients suffering from depression (even in the first episode) tend to overestimate their memory difficulties.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 it