[F3–05–01]: COGNITIVE AND FUNCTIONAL PREDICTORS OF INCIDENT ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE: DATA FROM THE NATIONAL ALZHEIMER's COORDINATING CENTER (NACC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impairment in Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADLs), together with cognitive performance is useful in determining which individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are at risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD). We examined the utility of the self-report Functional Assessment Questionnaire (FAQ) in predicting incident AD in a group of racially/ethnically diverse participants from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) database. Participants were included if they met the following criteria: diagnosis of MCI by a NACC clinician, Clinical Dementia Rating global score=0.5, and impairment on at least one memory and one non-memory test. Cox regression methods were used to estimate AD risk associated with the FAQ and composite scores of verbal memory (Logical Memory I; IIA), Attention (Digit Span Forward; Trails A), Executive Function (Digit Span Backward; Trails B; Digit Symbol), and Language (Semantic fluency; Object naming) as well as a total composite score. Racial/Ethnic groups were analyzed separately to evaluate potential differences in associations between cognitive predictors and AD. 878 participants (713 Non-Hispanic Caucasians, 151 African Americans, 14 Hispanics) were classified as having MCI, based on NIA/AA clinical and cognitive criteria. Participants had an average of 3.5 years (range: 0.5–10.5) of follow-up, which did not differ by race/ethnicity or education; males and older participants were more likely to be in the study for > 3 years. 373 (42.5%) participants progressed from MCI to NINCDS/ADRDA criteria for probable AD. Based on Cox regression models including the full sample, the total composite score predicted incident probable AD (HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03–1.07). The FAQ (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.27–1.48), Verbal Memory (HR 1.27, CI 1.19–1.35), and Language (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.03–1.13) each independently predicted probable AD. The FAQ, Memory, Executive Function, and Language were significant predictors of probable AD for Non-Hispanic Caucasians, but only FAQ was significant for the African American/Hispanic group. Findings support the addition of a measure of mild functional decline, such as the FAQ, as part of criteria for MCI in multi-ethnic/racial populations. Differences in the predictive utility of cognitive domains by race/ethnicity using NIA/AA cognitive and clinical MCI criteria warrant further investigation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".