Biological Factors Contributing to the Response to Cognitive Training in Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In mild cognitive impairment (MCI), small benefits from cognitive training were observed for memory functions but there appears to be great variability in the response to treatment. Our study aimed to improve the characterization and selection of those participants who will benefit from cognitive intervention. We evaluated the predictive value of disease-specific biological factors for the outcome after cognitive training in MCI (n = 25) and also considered motivation of the participants. We compared the results of the cognitive intervention group with two independent control groups of MCI patients (local memory clinic, n = 20; ADNI cohort, n = 302). The primary outcome measure was episodic memory as measured by verbal delayed recall of a 10-word list. Episodic memory remained stable after treatment and slightly increased 6 months after the intervention. In contrast, in MCI patients who did not receive an intervention, episodic memory significantly decreased during the same time interval. A larger left entorhinal cortex predicted more improvement in episodic memory after treatment and so did higher levels of motivation. Adding disease-specific biological factors significantly improved the prediction of training-related change compared to a model based simply on age and baseline performance. Bootstrapping with resampling (n = 1000) verified the stability of our finding. Cognitive training might be particularly helpful in individuals with a bigger left entorhinal cortex as individuals who did not benefit from intervention showed 17% less volume in this area. When extended to alternative treatment options, stratification based on disease-specific biological factors is a useful step towards individualized medicine.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".