MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Subjective Cognitive Decline in Preclinical Alzheimer's Disease

2017· review· en· W2522995391 on OpenAlexaff
Laura A. Rabin, Colette M. Smart, Rebecca E. Amariglio

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Clinical Psychology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsCognitive declineCognitionDementiaDiseaseNormativeConstruct (python library)NeuropsychologyPsychologyClinical psychologyIntervention (counseling)Alzheimer's diseaseMedicineGerontologyPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Older adults with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) in the absence of objective neuropsychological dysfunction are increasingly viewed as at risk for non-normative cognitive decline and eventual progression to Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. The past decade has witnessed tremendous growth in research on SCD, which may reflect the recognition of SCD as the earliest symptomatic manifestation of AD. Yet methodological challenges associated with establishing common assessment and classification procedures hamper the construct. This article reviews essential features of SCD associated with preclinical AD and current measurement approaches, highlighting challenges in harmonizing study findings across settings. We consider the relation of SCD to important variables and outcomes (e.g., AD biomarkers, clinical progression). We also examine the role of self- and informant-reports in SCD and various psychological, medical, and demographic factors that influence the self-report of cognition. We conclude with a discussion of intervention strategies for SCD, ethical considerations, and future research priorities.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.403
GPT teacher head0.658
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations596
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Clinical PsychologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207