The spectrum of pre‐dementia stages: cognitive profile of motoric cognitive risk syndrome and relationship with mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Motoric cognitive risk (MCR) syndrome is a pre-dementia syndrome. There is little information on the cognitive profile of individuals with MCR syndrome and its overlap with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) syndrome. This study aimed to examine and compare the cognitive performance of non-demented older community dwellers with and without MCR and MCI syndromes. METHODS: A total of 291 non-demented individuals were selected from the Gait and Alzheimer Interactions Tracking study, which is a cross-sectional study. All participants were referred to a memory clinic. Individuals with and without MCR were separated into those with and without MCI. Cognitive performance was measured using the scores of the Mini Mental Status Examination, Frontal Assessment Battery, Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test, Trail Making Test part A and B, and Stroop test. RESULTS: The prevalence of MCI was 40.1% and that of MCR was 18.2%, with a higher prevalence of MCI in MCR group compared with the non-MCR group (47.2% vs. 39.5%). Individuals with MCR and MCI syndromes had poorer cognitive performance in all domains compared with those without MCR (P < 0.005), except for the ratio part III: part I of the Stroop test (P = 0.345). The association between cognitive performance and MCR syndrome was worse on the Mini Mental Status Examination score [effect size, -0.57 (95% confidence interval, -1.02 to -0.12)] and Trail Making Test part B [effect size, 0.59 (95% confidence interval, 0.14-1.04)] in individuals with MCR and MCI syndromes. CONCLUSIONS: Motoric cognitive risk syndrome is associated with low global cognitive performance. Association of MCR and MCI syndromes is characterized by a worse cognitive performance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".