MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Functional Impairment in Elderly Patients With Mild Cognitive Impairment and Mild Alzheimer Disease<alt-title>Impairment in MCI and AD Patients</alt-title>

2011· article· en· W2142666055 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patrick J. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of General Psychiatry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsDementiaCognitive impairmentContext (archaeology)Functional impairmentAlzheimer's diseaseDiseaseCognitionPsychologyMedicineNeuroimagingInternal medicineAudiologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: The original mild cognitive impairment (MCI) criteria exclude substantial functional deficits, but recent reports suggest otherwise. Identifying the extent, severity, type, and correlates of functional deficits that occur in MCI and mild Alzheimer disease (AD) can aid in early detection of incipient dementia and can identify potential mechanistic pathways to disrupted instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs). OBJECTIVES: To examine the number, type, and severity of functional impairments and to identify the clinical characteristics associated with functional impairment across patients with amnestic MCI (aMCI) and those with mild AD. DESIGN: Study using baseline data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. SETTING: Multiple research sites in the United States and Canada. Patients Samples included 229 control individuals, 394 patients with aMCI, and 193 patients with AD. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The 10-item Pfeffer Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ) assessed function. RESULTS: Informant-reported FAQ deficits were common in patients with aMCI (72.3%) and AD (97.4%) but were rarely self-reported by controls (7.9%). The average severity per FAQ deficit did not differ between patients with aMCI and controls; both were less impaired than patients with AD (P < .001). Two FAQ items (remembering appointments, family occasions, holidays, and medications and assembling tax records, business affairs, or other papers) were specific (specificity estimate, 0.95) in differentiating the control group from the combined aMCI and AD groups (only 34.0% of patients with aMCI and 3.6% of patients with AD had no difficulty with these 2 items). The severity of FAQ deficits in the combined aMCI and AD group was associated with worse Trail Making Test, part A scores and smaller hippocampal volumes (P < .001 for both). Within the aMCI group, functionally intact individuals had greater hippocampal volumes and better Auditory Verbal Learning Test 30-minute delay and Trail Making Test, part A (P < .001 for each) scores compared with individuals with moderate or severe FAQ deficits. Patients with a high number of deficits were more likely to express the apolipoprotein ε4 allele (63.8%) compared with patients with no (46.8%) or few (48.4%) functional deficits. CONCLUSIONS: Mild IADL deficits are common in individuals with aMCI and should be incorporated into MCI criteria. Two IADLs--remembering appointments, family occasions, holidays, and medications and assembling tax records, business affairs, or other papers--appear to be characteristic of clinically significant cognitive impairment. In patients with aMCI, impairment in memory and processing speed and greater medial temporal atrophy were associated with greater IADL deficits.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations251
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of General PsychiatrySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207