ArticleScientific reports2024
Exploring crystallized and fluid intelligence in down syndrome using graph theory.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This cross-sectional study examined the cognitive performance of crystallized intelligence (Gc) and fluid intelligence (Gf) in 340 individuals, comparing adults (aged 22-45) to adolescents (aged 16-21) in two groups of etiologies. Down syndrome (DS) and non-specific intellectual disability (NSID). The aim was to estimate whether their cognitive performance reflected accelerated, stable, or continuous trajectories. Participants were assessed using the Vocabulary, Similarities, Block Design, and Raven Matrix tests. ANOVA analysis indicated that adults exhibited higher scores than adolescents on three of the crystallized and fluid intelligence tests, with similar trends observed in the Raven Matrix test, thus supporting the Compensation Age Theory. Participants with NSID exhibited higher scores in Vocabulary than participants with DS. Participants with DS exhibited higher scores in Block Design and Raven than participants with NSID. There was no difference between the groups in Similarities, suggesting that the verbal ability of individuals with DS is not so impaired relative to participants with NSID. Graph analysis demonstrated divergent Gc-Gf networks between the two groups of etiologies. The DS etiology revealed more coherent connections between crystallized and fluid intelligence, especially in adulthood, compared to the diffuse and absent connections seen in adults with NSID. Thus, the relative strength in Similarities and the more coherent Gc-Gf interconnections in the DS etiology suggested a more coherent and not-so-impaired profile in a clear diagnostic etiology such as DS, especially in adulthood, compared to unclear genetic etiologies such as NSID. The findings hold educational implications for adults with ID with and without Down syndrome at least until their 40's as a time for growth and development, perhaps serving as a protective factor against possible cognitive decline in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.