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
The aim of the study is to assesses associative memory and memory complaints in daily life in people with a First Episode of Depression (FED). This is a preliminary pilot study with observational design. Thirty participants were recruited and assessed: fifteen patients (FED) and 15 healthy (HCtrl) participants. The recruitment was from Mental Health Units between 2021 to 2022. DSM-5 diagnostic criteria and the International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) were used to diagnose depression. The cognitive tests used were face-Name Associative Memory Exam (FNAME), daily life memory questionnaire (MFE-30), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test (MoCA). FED patients showed mean score compared to the HCtrl significantly higher on the MFE-30, but there were no significant differences in the FNAME. Furthermore, the results no significant correlations were observed between subjective (MFE-30) and objective (FNAME) memory performance. We observed a dissociation between FED patients’ perception of memory difficulties and their objectively measured memory.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it