Mild Cognitive Impairment Due to Alzheimer Disease is Less Likely Under the Age of 65
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) are considered to have a high risk for Alzheimer dementia (AD). Even high positive predictive values, however, cannot be guaranteed even by tests with high sensitivity and specificity when disease prevalence is low. If we regard the clinical criteria for aMCI as a test for predicting aMCI due to AD, the positive predictive value of the criteria will be low by definition in young patients with aMCI (age below 65 years) because of the low prevalence of AD in this age group. To test this hypothesis, we compared CSF biomarkers for AD between young (age below 65 years) and old (age 65 years or older) age groups of normal cognition, aMCI, and AD of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database. Using these biomarkers, we observed that the prevalence of aMCI due to AD differed significantly between the young and the old. For example, only 28.2% young aMCI, but 63.2% old aMCI, had abnormal CSF amyloid measures consistent with AD pathology. As posited, the presence of aMCI due to AD was lower in young aMCI than in old aMCI. Given that the likelihood of aMCI due to AD is reduced in younger subjects, more attention to and evaluation of alternative diagnoses need to be considered in this group.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".