Repetitive negative thinking is associated with amyloid, tau, and cognitive decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Cognitive Debt hypothesis proposes that repetitive negative thinking (RNT), a modifiable process common to many psychological risk factors for Alzheimer's disease (AD) may itself increase risk. We sought to empirically examine relationships between RNT and markers of AD, compared with anxiety and depression symptoms. METHODS: Two hundred and ninety-two older adults with longitudinal cognitive assessments, including 113 with amyloid-positron emission tomography (PET) and tau-PET scans, from the PREVENT-AD cohort and 68 adults with amyloid-PET scans from the IMAP+ cohort were included. All participants completed RNT, anxiety, and depression questionnaires. RESULTS: RNT was associated with decline in global cognition (P = .02); immediate (P = .03) and delayed memory (P = .04); and global amyloid (PREVENT-AD: P = .01; IMAP+: P = .03) and entorhinal tau (P = .02) deposition. Relationships remained after adjusting for potential confounders. DISCUSSION: RNT was associated with decline in cognitive domains affected early in AD and with neuroimaging AD biomarkers. Future research could investigate whether modifying RNT reduces AD risk.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".