Systemic inflammatory markers in age-associated cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To determine a complex of immune markers reflecting various links of multicomponent inflammatory reactions in amnestic type of mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) in comparison with Alzheimer's disease (AD). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty-seven patients with aMCI, aged 72 [63; 77] years, and 91 patients with Alzheimer's disease at the age of 74 [68; 79] years were examined. The aMCI was diagnosed according to the criteria of R.S. Petersen et al. (1999) and B. Dubois et al. (2014). The diagnosis of AD was established in accordance with the ICD-10 and NINCDS-ADRDA criteria. The degree of dementia severity was determined by clinical signs using the CDR (Clinical Dementia Rating) and the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) total score. The control group included 38 age- and sex-matched individuals. Immune and biochemical parameters were determined in blood plasma. The activity of LE and α1-PI was determined by spectrophotometric method. Concentrations of IL-6 and CRP were measured by enzyme immunoassay. RESULTS: AD was characterized by the significant decrease in LE activity (p<0.0001) and increase in the activity/levels of α1-PI, CRP and IL-6 (p<0.001; p<0.05; p<0.01, respectively) compared to controls. CDR and MMSE scores were correlated with the LE activity (r=-0.38, r=0.31, p<0.05), i.e. cognitive decline was associated with decreased activity of LE. aMCI was characterized by the significant increase in the activity/level of α1-PI and IL-6 (p<0.0001; p<0.01). In 30% of patients with aMCI, a spectrum of inflammatory markers, typical for patients with AD, was determined. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of comparative analysis of aMCI and AD, one can suggest that one third of patients with aMCI represents a group of ultra-high risk of AD. These patients need a dynamic follow-up with a regular assessment of the state of cognitive functions and possibly preventive therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".