[P2–429]: COMPARING BRAAK STAGE IN BRAIN DONORS WITH AND WITHOUT SUBJECTIVE COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT (SCI) DURING LIFE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subjective cognitive impairment (SCI) may be an early at-risk period of dementia. Previous analysis of registered brain donors suggested that compared to participants with no cognitive impairment (NCI), those with SCI have significantly lower MMSE and MoCA scores and significantly higher depression scores during life. The aim of this analysis was to examine whether any differences were evident in the brain tissue of individuals with and without SCI. Participants were identified from the baseline clinical assessments of brain donors registered with Brains for Dementia Research (BDR) with a Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) Global Score =<0.5 and a Global Deterioration Score (GDS)<4). Deceased participants were classified as SCI (GDS=2), NCI (GDS=1) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (GDS=3) and brain tissue was compared in respect of cognition (baseline & last recorded), depression and BRAAK stage. Binary regression analysis was conducted to examine predictors of BRAAK stage (BRAAK stages 0–2, BRAAK stages 3–6). Of the 738 baseline assessments fulfilling the selection criteria, a total of 66 participants were deceased and of these 41 (62.1%) were NCI, 16 were SCI (24.2%) and 9 were MCI (13.7%). Significant differences were evident in the baseline MMSE scores across the groups (F (2,59)=7.480, p=0.001) but not for MoCA scores (F(2,27)=1.998, p=0.16). Significant group differences were also evident in the last MMSE recorded before death (F (2, 69)=4.33, p=-.018). Mean BRAAK stage did not differ significantly across the groups (F(2,41)=0.59, p>0.05). SCI status (OR=1.5, 95% CI = 0.6–3.9, p=.36), MMSE at first visit (OR=1.5, CI=.64–2.87, p=.43), Geriatric Depression Scale score (OR=.69, CI=.46–1.0, p=0.07,) and MMSE at last visit before death (OR=1.1, CI=.53–2.1, p=.85) were not significant predictors of BRAAK stage. Preliminary analysis suggests that although SCI status is associated with significant differences in cognition and depression scores during life, SCI status at post-mortem does not predict BRAAK stage. Further study using larger sample sizes is required in order to replicate these findings.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".