Neurodegenerative Patterns of Cognitive Clusters of Early-Onset Alzheimer’s Disease Subjects: Evidence for Disease Heterogeneity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Alzheimer's disease (AD) with onset before 65 (early-onset AD [EOAD]) occurs in approximately 6% of cases and can affect nonmemory domains. Here, we analyze patterns of impairment in amnestic EOAD individuals using data-driven statistical analyses. METHODS: Cognitive data of 146 EOAD subjects were Z-normalized to 395 cognitively normal (CN) individuals. Domain-averaged Z-scores were adjusted for age, sex, and education followed by Wald cluster analysis of residuals. Magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography comparisons of EOAD clusters to age-matched CN were done using Statistic Parametric Mapping 8. Cluster-level-family-wise error (p < 0.05) correction was applied. Mixed-effect models were used to compute longitudinal change across clusters. RESULTS: Scree plot using the pseudo-T-squared suggested a 4-cluster solution. Cluster 1 (memory-predominant impairment) showed atrophy/hypometabolism in medial/lateral temporal, lateral parietal, and posterior cingulate regions. Cluster 2 (memory/visuospatial-predominant) showed atrophy/hypometabolism of medial temporal, temporoparietal, and frontal cortices. Cluster 3 (memory, language, and executive function) and Cluster 4 (globally impaired) manifested atrophy and hypometabolism throughout the brain. Longitudinally between-cluster differences in the visuospatial and language/executive domains were significant, suggesting phenotypic variation. CONCLUSION: We observed significant heterogeneity in cognitive presentation among amnestic EOAD subjects and patterns of atrophy/hypometabolism in each cluster in agreement with the observed cognitive phenotype.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".