Predictors of Clinical Progression of Subjective Memory Impairment in Elderly Subjects: Data from the Clinical Research Centers for Dementia of South Korea (CREDOS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aims of this study were to determine baseline factors related to the progression of subjective memory impairment (SMI) in elderly subjects and to develop a new modeling scale to predict progression. METHODS: Elderly subjects with SMI were recruited from the nationwide Clinical Research Centers for Dementia of South Korea (CREDOS) multicenter cohort and divided into two groups: (1) progressed to mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer's disease or (2) stable without progression. Baseline clinical characteristics were compared between the groups, and the most relevant predictors of progression were assessed. A new modeling scale combining the predictors was developed. RESULTS: In total, 129 subjects with SMI were analyzed. The follow-up duration was 0.5-4.7 years, and the median time to event was 3.64 years. The progressing group (n = 29) differed from the stable group (n = 100) in terms of baseline age, apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) status, and some cognitive domains. Older age, a lower Mini-Mental State Examination recall score, APOE4 carrier, and a lower verbal delayed recall score were the most relevant predictors of progression, and a new modeling scale with these 4 predictors provided a better explanation of progression. CONCLUSION: SMI subjects with a higher risk of progression can be identified using a new modeling scale and might need further evaluations and more frequent follow-up.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".