Prominent Non-Memory Deficits in Alzheimer’s Disease Are Associated with Faster Disease Progression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a heterogeneous disorder. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether cognitive AD subtypes are associated with different rates of disease progression. METHODS: We included 1,066 probable AD patients from the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort (n = 290), Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (n = 268), Dementia Competence Network (n = 226), and University of California, San Francisco (n = 282) with available follow-up data. Patients were previously clustered into two subtypes based on their neuropsychological test results: one with most prominent memory impairment (n = 663) and one with most prominent non-memory impairment (n = 403). We examined associations between cognitive subtype and disease progression, as measured with repeated Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Clinical Dementia Rating scale sum of boxes (CDR sob), using linear mixed models. Furthermore, we investigated mortality risk associated with subtypes using Cox proportional hazard analyses. RESULTS: Patients were 71±9 years old; 541 (51%) were female. At baseline, pooled non-memory patients had worse MMSE scores (23.1±0.1) and slightly worse CDR sob (4.4±0.1) than memory patients (MMSE 24.0±0.1; p < 0.001; CDR sob 4.1±0.1; p < 0.001). During follow-up, pooled non-memory patients showed steeper annual decline in MMSE (-2.8±0.1) and steeper annual increase in CDR sob (1.8±0.1) than memory patients (MMSE - 1.9±0.1; pinteraction<0.001; CDR sob 1.3±0.1; pinteraction<0.001). Furthermore, the non-memory subtype was associated with an increased risk of mortality compared with the memory subtype at trend level (HR = 1.36, CI = 1.00-1.85, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: AD patients with most prominently non-memory impairment show faster disease progression and higher risk of mortality than patients with most prominently memory impairment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".