Working Memory Mediates the Association between Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Plasticity and Global Cognition in Alzheimer's Dementia and Older Healthy Comparison Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundDorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) plasticity is associated with working memory (WM) in a combine sample of individuals with Alzheimer’s dementia (AD) and older healthy comparison (HC). We hypothesized that DLPFC plasticity is associated with Global Cognition (GC) and that this association is mediated by WM. MethodsThirty-two AD and 20 HC participants were assessed using Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status for GC, N-back task for WM, and electroencephalography combined with Paired Associative Stimulation of DLPFC for DLPFC plasticity. ResultsDLPFC plasticity was associated with GC (B [SE] = 21.65 [9.08]; β = 0.30; P = .02) in the combined group of AD and HC participants. WM mediated the association between DLPFC plasticity and GC (B= 18.67[6.52], 99%CI [2.11, 38.94). Conclusion This study suggests that DLPFC plasticity impacts GC via its impact on WM and significant relationship between DLPFC plasticity and GC may be mediated by WM.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".