Fluency Patterns of Adult Females with Focal Epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the fluency patterns in female adults diagnosed with focal epilepsy. This study used a two-group parallel quasi-experimental design. Standard scores from the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were collected in addition to a two-hundred-word narrative production and a semantic verbal fluency task from each of the nineteen adult female participants between 18 and 35 years of age. Six participants with focal epilepsy and thirteen non-epileptic peers were included. Narratives were recorded and analyzed for variations in speech fluency, while the MoCA and semantic verbal fluency task were used to analyze cognition and verbal fluency. The results indicated a significant difference in phonemic verbal fluency and cognition between those with focal epilepsy and the control group. No significant differences were observed for speech fluency or semantic verbal fluency between the two groups although trends were in the hypothesized directions. Additionally, family history of epilepsy and suspected diagnoses of TLE or FLE did not appear to affect speech, language, or cognitive outcomes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".