Sex Differences in Cognitive Decline in Subjects with High Likelihood of Mild Cognitive Impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex differences in Alzheimer's disease (AD) biology and progression are not yet fully characterized. The goal of this study is to examine the effect of sex on cognitive progression in subjects with high likelihood of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer's and followed up to 10 years in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Cerebrospinal fluid total-tau and amyloid-beta (Aβ42) ratio values were used to sub-classify 559 MCI subjects (216 females, 343 males) as having "high" or "low" likelihood for MCI due to Alzheimer's. Data were analyzed using mixed-effects models incorporating all follow-ups. The worsening from baseline in Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive score (mean, SD) (9 ± 12) in subjects with high likelihood of MCI due to Alzheimer's was markedly greater than that in subjects with low likelihood (1 ± 6, p < 0.0001). Among MCI due to AD subjects, the mean worsening in cognitive score was significantly greater in females (11.58 ± 14) than in males (6.87 ± 11, p = 0.006). Our findings highlight the need to further investigate these findings in other populations and develop sex specific timelines for Alzheimer's disease progression.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".