Suicidal ideation is common in autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease at‐risk persons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To study the frequency of suicidal ideation and its association with clinical and neurobiological correlates among cognitively intact autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease (ADAD) at-risk individuals. METHODS/DESIGN: In a cross-sectional study of 183 ADAD at-risk individuals (91 mutation carriers and 92 noncarriers), we compared the frequency of suicidal ideation among carriers and noncarriers. Linear mixed-effects models with family-level random effects evaluated the relationships between geriatric depression scale (GDS), neuropsychiatric inventory-questionnaire (NPI-Q), and suicidal ideation scores among all ADAD at-risk individuals. An interaction term was added to the regression models to evaluate the interactions of suicidal ideation and mutation status on neuropsychiatric symptoms. RESULTS: Twenty-six (14.20%) ADAD at-risk individuals (13 [14.28%] carriers and 13 [14.13%] noncarriers) had suicidal ideation. The frequency of suicidal ideation did not differ between carriers and noncarriers. Suicidal ideation was associated with higher GDS among all ADAD at-risk individuals. When stratified into mutation carrier status, noncarriers with suicidal ideation had higher GDS than carriers. There was no statistically significant association between suicidal ideation and NPI-Q among ADAD at-risk individuals. Awareness of mutation status, neuropsychological performances, and cerebrospinal fluid AD biomarkers were not associated with suicidal ideation among carriers and noncarriers. CONCLUSIONS: Suicidal ideation is common among cognitively intact ADAD at-risk individuals. While ADAD at-risk individuals with suicidal ideation have greater depressive symptoms, noncarriers with suicidal ideation have higher GDS scores than carriers. Interestingly, awareness of the mutation status was not associated with suicidal ideation in our study. Early identification of suicidal thoughts can facilitate timely interventions to prevent suicidal behaviours. Keywords autosomal dominant Alzheimer's diseasedominantly inherited Alzheimer's networkneuropsychiatric symptomssuicidal ideation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".