Factors related to the progression of mild cognitive impairment toward Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the progression of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer's disease (AD) and the factors influencing the related changes in cognitive ability. Methods Seventy-five subjects with mild cognitive impairment (the MCI group), 32 with Alzheimer's disease (the AD group) and 17 others with normal cognition (the NC group) were recruited. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) and the Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE) were used to assess their cognitive ability. At the same time, relevant clinical information such as their general condition and past history of disease were recorded. The subjects were followed up for 20 months on average to evaluate their annual rates of progression (APRs), and logistic regression was used to highlight any influencing factors. Results By the end of the follow-up, 9 of the 75 MCI subjects had progressed to AD, with an APR of 5.25%. Thirteen cases had recovered normal cognitive functioning (97.6 per 1, 000 person-years). Also, 2 cases in the NC group (11.76%) developed MCI (69.1 per 1, 000 person-years), but none of them had yet progressed to AD. Both hyperlipidemia and a body mass index (BMI) lower than 24 kg/m2 significantly predicted the deterioration of cognitive functioning. Heart disease was significantly correlated with cognitive improvement, and self-management of cognitive function was also a significant protective factor. Conclusions Patients with MCI are at greater risk of developing AD than normal persons. Prevention and early treatment of hyperlipidemia as well as maintaining a normal BMI may delay the deterioration of cognitive functioning. Self-management of cognitive function can improve cognition. Key words: Cognitive impairment; Alzheimer's disease
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".