Cognitive Disparities in the Wayuu Indigenous Population: Insights from Neuropsychological Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The neuropsychological profile within indigenous communities is a complex interplay of cultural, social, and environmental factors that significantly influence cognitive functioning and distinct neuropsychological patterns. The aim of this study was to assess the neuropsychological profile in the Wayuu indigenous population. METHODS: A cross-sectional study. Wayuu indigenous individuals (n = 100) and non-indigenous individuals (n = 100) from the northern coast of the Colombian Caribbean were included. The neuropsychological profile was assessed using the following tests: Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R), Clue Recall, Delayed Recall, Memory Complaint Scale (MCS), Trail Making Test Part A and B (TMT-A/B), Symbol-Digit test, Lawton & Brody, Yesavage, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). The Wilcoxon test was applied to compare median scores between Wayuu indigenous and non-indigenous individuals. Additionally, the Spearman test was utilized to assess the correlation between the scores obtained for each test. RESULTS: The Wayuu population exhibited significantly lower scores in neuropsychological tests related to memory, learning, autonomy, depression, and cognitive function in comparison to non-indigenous individuals (p<0.01) (Figure 1). Significant positive correlations were observed between Clue Recall and HLVT-R (Spearman r = 0.82, p<0.001), Clue Recall and Delayed Recall (Spearman r = 0.69, p<0.001), and between Lawton & Brody and MOCA (Spearman r = 0.42, p<0.001). In contrast, significant negative correlations were found between Yesavage and MOCA (Spearman r = -0.45, p < 0.001), and between Yesavage and Lawton/Brody (Spearman r = -0.45, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study emphasizes significant cognitive gaps within the Wayuu indigenous community. The neuropsychological landscape of this indigenous population reveals the impact of historical and contemporary factors on cognitive health, emphasizing the necessity of culturally tailored interventions to improve neurocognitive well-being in these communities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".