Prevalence, neurobiology, and treatments for apathy in prodromal dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Apathy, characterized by diminished motivation, is a highly prevalent neuropsychiatric symptom in dementia. However, there is a substantial knowledge gap with regard to prevalence rates, neurobiological underpinnings, and effective treatments for apathy in pre-dementia states, including mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild behavioral impairment (MBI). METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases to identify available research on apathy in prodromal dementia. RESULTS: Apathy has consistently been detected in individuals with MCI with varying prevalence rates, and only recently has literature discussed the prevalence of apathy in MBI. Few pharmacological treatments have been utilized for apathy, with galantamine and risperidone showing mild reductions in apathetic behaviors. Non-pharmacological interventions in prodromal dementia are beginning to be explored and show promise, but few studies have replicated those results. DISCUSSION: More comprehensive guidelines for diagnosing apathy and further research investigating neurobiological mechanisms of apathy in MCI and MBI are required in order to effectively treat apathetic patients in prodromal dementia.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".