User:Ulenui760/sandbox

Treatments
If effective medical treatment for depression is given, this can aid in the distinction between pseudodementia and dementia. Antidepressants have been found to assist in the elimination of cognitive dysfunction associated with depression, whereas cognitive dysfunction associated with true dementia continues along a steady gradient. In cases where antidepressant therapy is not well tolerated, patients can consider electroconvulsive therapy as a possible alternative. However, studies have revealed that patients who displayed cognitive dysfunction related to depression eventually developed dementia later on in their lives.

The development of treatments for dementia has not been as fast as those for depression. Thus far, cholinesterase inhibitors are the most popular drug used to slow the progression of the disease and improves cognitive function for a period of time.

History
The term was first coined in 1961 by psychiatrist Leslie Kiloh, who noticed patients with cognitive symptoms consistent with dementia who improved with treatment. Reversible causes of true dementia must be excluded. His term was mainly descriptive. The clinical phenomenon, however, was well-known since the late 19th century as melancholic dementia.

Doubts about the classification and features of the syndrome, and the misleading nature of the name, led to proposals that the term be dropped. However, proponents argue that although it is not a defined singular concept with a precise set of symptoms, it is a practical and useful term which has held up well in clinical practice, and also highlights those who may have a treatable condition.

Presentation and Differential
The history of disturbance in pseudodementia is often short and abrupt onset, while dementia is more often insidious. Clinically, people with pseudodementia differ from those with true dementia when their memory is tested. They will often answer that they don't know the answer to a question, and their attention and concentration are often intact. They may appear upset or distressed, and those with true dementia will often give wrong answers, have poor attention and concentration, and appear indifferent or unconcerned. The symptoms of depression oftentimes mimic dementia even though it may be co-occurring

The implementation and application of existing collaborative care models, such as DICE, can aid in avoiding misdiagnosis. Comorbidities (such as vascular, infectious, traumatic, autoimmune, idiopathic, or even becoming malnourished) have the potential to mimic symptoms of dementia. For instance, studies have also shown a relationship between depression and its cognitive effects on everyday functioning and distortions of memory.

Investigations such as PET and SPECT imaging of the brain show reduced blood flow in areas of the brain in people with Alzheimer's disease, compared with a more normal blood flow in those with pseudodementia.


 * 1) Jones, R. D., Tranel, D., Benton, A., & Paulsen, J. (1992). Differentiating dementia from “pseudodementia” early in the clinical course: Utility of neuropsychological tests. Neuropsychology, 6(1), 13–21. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.1037/0894-4105.6.1.13
 * 2) Sáez-Fonseca, J. A., Lee, L., & Walker, Z. (2007). Long-term outcome of depressive pseudodementia in the elderly. Journal of Affective Disorders, 101(1–3), 123–129. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.1016/j.jad.2006.11.004
 * 3) Devakshi Dua, & Sandeep Grover. (2018). Don’t forget me: Pseudodementia associated with depression. Journal of Geriatric Mental Health, (2), 159. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.4103/jgmh.jgmh_29_18
 * 4) Peritogiannis, V., Zafiris, S., Pappas, D., & Mavreas, V. (2008). Conversion pseudodementia in the elderly: A review of the literature with case presentation. Psychogeriatrics, 8(1), 24–31. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.1111/j.1479-8301.2007.00208.x
 * 5) Lantz, M. S., & Buchalter, E. N. (2001). Pseudodementia. Cognitive decline caused by untreated depression may be reversed with treatment. Geriatrics, 56(10), 42–43. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uvu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cmedm&AN=11641862&site=eds-live
 * 6) Differential diagnosis among depressive pseudodementia, frontal dementia and subcortical dementia: a case report. (2004). Actas Espanolas de Psiquiatria, 32(1), 60–64. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uvu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lth&AN=13176570&site=eds-live

Share the Love


 * 1) First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?
 * 2) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
 * 3) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 4) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!

Motivated Reasoning Peer Review

The article is very simple, yet concise. It does a good job at explaining the definition of motivated reasoning from the beginning, and then elaborating on the certain topics throughout the article. I liked that the paper was simple and easy to navigate and follow along. I didn't have to reread the article multiple times to understand what it was trying to say like I normally do with other articles. I would suggest adding a summary to the lead. That way people know what they are going to be reading and can refer back to the summary to remember and refresh their memory on what they read. I think the most important thing the author could do would be to add more to the lead, and talk about what is mentioned in the lead. There were some definitions/topics that were mentioned about motivated reasoning in the lead that were not clearly related to the topics in the article. I feel like we could apply the concept of keeping our article that we are reviewing simple and concise. Also, we could improve our lead and relate our article to our lead more.

Social Cognition Peer Review

I liked that the lead was well developed and showed the most important information in the article. The article does well at explaining different ideas and theories for social cognition and it gives many examples and references for informative purposes. If I could suggest a change it would be to add a summary and outline of what the reader is about to read in the article so that the readers will know and remember what they are going to read and learn about. I would also suggest that you change the order of the topics. I feel it would be more cogent to put social schema and social cognitive neuroscience next to each other instead of having cultural differences in between them. I would suggest putting it in the following order: history, social schema, social cognitive neuroscience, and then cultural differences. This would be best because the end of social cognitive neuroscience talks about young babies learning social behaviors, which could then transition in to developmental learning and how we develop and learn differently depending on our environment. Then cultural differences could be brought in to really solidify that information of different social learning depending on location. I feel like the most important change would be to add those missing references in the social cognitive neuroscience section. We could incorporate adding a summary in our lead and making an outline of what is in our article. We could also do better at rearranging our topics to flow better.

Emotion Classification Peer Review

The article does very well at explaining the differences between the two different ways that emotion is classified. It also does a great job at outlining the article in the lead. The sources are credible and reliable sources. I would suggest that the lead be developed more by adding more information about the two different ways that emotion is classified. Perhaps adding a brief definition and explanation of the two types and the subtopics that you talk about in the article. I feel like doing so would help the readers understand what they are going to be reading about, and they can refer back to the lead for a summary of what they have read. I feel like the most important change would be to add more material to the lead by defining the different classifications and the subtopics. I realize that we could incorporate how you outlined the paper in the lead into our own article that we are reviewing. We could also learn from this article about how to stay neutral between two different ways and just focus on giving the information rather than an opinion.

Motivated Reasoning paper

Follow their lead:


 * Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Yes. The lead briefly explains the definition of motivated reasoning.
 * Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? The lead only gives a definition of the subject of the article. It could do better at including a summary of the article.
 * Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? A summary of the article would be best to include.

A clear structure


 * Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? It is organized well in a sensible order

Balancing act


 * Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? The cognitive strategy section seems to be much shorter in comparison to all the other sections. Also, the research section is short and could be improved by adding a couple more studies about motivated reasoning.
 * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? There could be more added to the cognitive strategy section. Also, there are subtopics brought up in the lead that weren't mentioned much throughout the article.
 * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, but there is a lot more information in some points more than others.

Neutral content


 * Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? There are no sides to choose, but I can see that the author prefers one reason for motivated reasoning over others by the amount of information they have in that topic.
 * Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." No, it's pretty neutral.
 * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." No
 * Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.No

Reliable sources


 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? The statements are reliable sources like journals and studies.
 * Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. No, there are many different sources and types of sources.
 * Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! All the sources check out.

Social Cognition

Follow their lead:


 * Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Yes. It does a great job at explaining what social cognition is and giving different ways theories about it.
 * Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? The lead reflects the most important information in the article.
 * Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? A summary of the article and an outline of the topics presented in the article would be helpful as a primer.

A clear structure


 * Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? I feel like the topics could be reorganized for optimal cogency. I think the order should go history, social schemas, social cognitive neuroscience, and then cultural differences. Or history, cultural differences, social schemas, and then social cognitive neuroscience. Depending on what you want to end on.

Balancing act


 * Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? All the topics are pretty equal in length and relevancy.
 * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? Everything seems to be talked about.
 * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No the article does not make the reader try to accept one view.

Neutral content


 * Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No
 * Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." No
 * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." No
 * Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. No

Reliable sources


 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? They have good reliable sources such as journals, books, and research articles.
 * Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. There are many different sources to add validity to the article.
 * Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! There were references that needed to be added in the social schemas section.

Emotion Classification Follow their lead:


 * Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? I feel like more needs to be added to the lead. Perhaps adding a brief definition of the subtopics represented.
 * Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? The lead does not do a good job at presenting the most important information.
 * Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? A summary of the article and a definition of the subtopics would be good to add.

A clear structure


 * Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? The lead does a good job at presenting what will be talked about by providing an outline, and the article follows that outline well. It is well organized.

Balancing act


 * Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? Everything in the article seems to be balanced with equal amount of information that is all relevant to the topic and outline presented in the lead.
 * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? All perspectives are represented and are discussed to a good length for informative purposes.
 * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No

Neutral content


 * Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No, the author does a good job at staying neutral and not favoring one side of the spectrum.
 * Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." No
 * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." No
 * Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. No

Reliable sources


 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? The references are reliable sources from journals, research articles, and various scholarly studies.
 * Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. No, there are many different sources that make the article very well balanced.
 * Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! No. Everything is in order with references.