Susceptibility of the conventional criteria for mild cognitive impairment to false‐positive diagnostic errors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We assessed whether mild cognitive impairment (MCI) subtypes could be empirically derived within the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) MCI cohort and examined associated biomarkers and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Cluster analysis was performed on neuropsychological data from 825 MCI ADNI participants. RESULTS: Four subtypes emerged: (1) dysnomic (n = 153), (2) dysexecutive (n = 102), (3) amnestic (n = 288), and (4) cluster-derived normal (n = 282) who performed within normal limits on cognitive testing. The cluster-derived normal group had significantly fewer APOE ε4 carriers and fewer who progressed to dementia compared with the other subtypes; they also evidenced cerebrospinal fluid Alzheimer's disease biomarker profiles that did not differ from the normative reference group. CONCLUSIONS: Identification of empirically derived MCI subtypes demonstrates heterogeneity in MCI cognitive profiles that is not captured by conventional criteria. The large cluster-derived normal group suggests that conventional diagnostic criteria are susceptible to false-positive errors, with the result that prior MCI studies may be diluting important biomarker relationships.
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 | 0.064 | 0.278 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".