Subjective cognitive and non‐cognitive complaints and brain MRI biomarkers in the MEMENTO cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Subjective cognitive complaints may be a signature of preclinical stage Alzheimer's disease. However, the link between subjective cognitive and non-cognitive complaints and brain alterations remains unclear. Methods The relationship between cognitive and non-cognitive complaints and brain biomarkers, measured by structural magnetic resonance imaging, was investigated in 2056 participants of the MEMENTO cohort of outpatients, who were dementia-free at baseline. We assessed whether the cognitive status at inclusion or the presence of the apolipoprotein E gene variant (APOE) ε4 could modulate the association between the intensity of complaints and brain lesions. Results Smaller hippocampal volume was associated with higher memory complaints and discomfort in daily life. In APOE ε4 carriers, smaller whole-brain white matter and gray matter volumes and gyrification indices in several regions of interest of the parietal and temporal lobes, in the entorhinal and the para-hippocampal gyrus, were associated with higher memory complaint score. Conclusions The intensity of subjective complaints in not only memory but discomfort in daily life was associated with brain degeneration markers. The presence of APOE ε4 modulated the relationships between subjective memory complaints and brain alterations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".