Visual Scanning and Attentional Biases in Alzheimer's Disease: Assessing Symptoms and Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current assessments of cognition and behaviour in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) rely on indirect evaluations and are complicated by communication deficits, hampering ability to effectively prescribe and monitor pharmacotherapy. The purpose of this thesis was to determine whether direct measurements of visual scanning behaviour can optimize symptom and outcome assessments in this patient population. In the four studies conducted, a non-verbal eye tracking technique was used to characterize visual scanning behaviour in order to quantify methods of measuring cognition, behaviour and pharmacotherapy-induced changes in AD patients. To evaluate selective attention towards novel stimuli or novelty preference in AD, mild-to-moderate AD patients (n=41) and elderly controls (n=24) viewed novel and repeated images simultaneously. Compared with controls, AD patients spent less time on novel than repeated images (F(1,63)=11.18, p=0.001). Reduced novelty preference was associated with worse cognition (Standardized Mini-Mental State Examination, sMMSE, r(63)=0.29, p
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".