Distinct Subgroups of Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment as Identified by Soft Independent Modeling of Class Analogy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) is a condition characterized by mild deficits in episodic and semantic memory and learning. The conversion rate of aMCI to Alzheimer disease (AD) is significantly higher in aMCI than in the general population. The aim of this study is to examine whether aMCI is a valid diagnostic category or whether aMCI comprises different subgroups based on cognitive functions. We recruited 60 aMCI patients, 60 with AD and 61 healthy controls who completed neuropsychological tests of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD-NP) and biomarkers including serum anion gap (AGAP). Principal component analysis, support vector machine and Soft Independent Modeling of Class Analogy (SIMCA) showed that AD patients and controls were highly significantly discrimanted from each other, while patients with aMCI overlap considerably with normal controls. SIMCA showed that 68.3% of the aMCI patients were assigned to the control class (named: aMCI-HC), 15% to AD (aMCI-AD), while 16.6% did not belong to either class (aMCI-strangers). aMCI-HC subjects showed sings of very mild cognitive decline and impaired recall. aMCI-strangers showed signs of mild cognitive impairment with impaired fluency and naming. aMCI-AD cases showed a cognitive profile reminiscent of AD an increased AGAP levels. In conclusion, our SIMCA model may classify subjects afforded a clinical diagnosis of aMCI according to Petersen’s criteria into three clinically relevant subgroups and help in the early detection of AD by identifying aMCI patients at risk to develop AD and those that have an AD prodrome.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".