Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39301787›Full record

ArticleNeuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section B, Aging, neuropsychology and cognition2025

Increased reliance on heuristic thinking in mild cognitive impairment.

Jeffrey C Zemla

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section B, Aging, neuropsychology and cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jeffrey C ZemlaDepartment of Psychology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA.

Funding

Research Training for Computation and Informatics in Biology and MedicineT15LM007359 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Mark W. Craven, Colin Noel Dewey · 2002 to 2026
$22.6M
NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007359
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reasoning can be fast, automatic, and intuitive or slow, deliberate, and analytical. Use of one cognitive reasoning style over the other has broad implications for beliefs, but differences in cognitive style have not previously been reported in those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Here, the cognitive reflection test is used to measure cognitive style in healthy older adults and those with MCI. Those with MCI performed worse than cognitively healthy older adults, indicating they are more likely to engage in intuitive thinking than age-matched adults. This association is reliable after controlling for additional cognitive, self-report, and demographic factors. Across all measures, subjective cognitive decline was the best predictor of cognitive status. A difference in cognitive style represents a novel behavioral marker of MCI, and future work should explore whether this explains a broader pattern of reasoning errors in those with MCI, such as susceptibility to scams or impaired financial reasoning.

Indexed as

Cognitive DysfunctionHeuristicsThinkingAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeuropsychological Testscognitive styleheuristicsjudgmentMild cognitive impairmentreasoning

Identifiers

PMID39301787
PMCPMC11922795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.