Phenomenological characterization of memory complaints in preclinical and prodromal Alzheimer’s disease.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the subjective experience of memory change in groups at risk of dementia (those with mild cognitive impairment MCI or high β-amyloid (Aβ+) burden) to determine the existence of potential phenomenological typologies. METHOD: We recruited 123 healthy controls (HC) and individuals with MCI from the Australian Imaging, Biomarker and Lifestyle (AIBL) study. Sixty-7 (HC = 47,MCI = 20) had Aβ scans available for analysis. Semistructured interviews were administered, transcribed, and meaningful phrases extracted from transcripts. Twelve themes were defined and compared across diagnostic status and Aβ status. RESULTS: MCI endorsed more complaints of burdensome coping strategies, increasing frequency, sense of predomination, poor contextualization, progression, dependency, impact on affect, and dismissive attitudes. HCAβ+ acknowledged a progressive memory decline compared to HCAβ-, while MCIAβ+ expressed more burdensome coping strategies, dismissive attitudes, and dependency comparative to either healthy group. Depression was more likely to be related to complaint themes in HCs, while complaint themes were associated with poorer list-learning performance in individuals with MCI. CONCLUSION: Complaint themes in those with MCI align with the MCI symptom complex, particularly when accompanied with high Aβ load. Healthy Aβ+ individuals acknowledged progressive memory change, suggesting they are aware of memory changes not yet detectable via neuropsychological measures. Depressive symptomatology associated with HC complaints, suggesting certain themes are affect-driven, while complaints in MCI are associated with organically driven functional impairment. Qualitative analysis of SMCs can inform the earliest clinical manifestations of Alzheimer's disease. Our findings can inform diagnostic approaches to the clinical evaluation of memory complaints in the nondemented elderly.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".