Multiple markers contribute to risk of progression from normal to mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify a parsimonious set of markers that optimally predicts subsequent clinical progression from normal to mild cognitive impairment (MCI). METHODS: 250 clinically normal adults (mean age = 73.6 years, SD = 6.0) from the Harvard Aging Brain Study were assessed at baseline on a wide set of markers, including magnetic resonance imaging markers of gray matter thickness and volume, white matter lesions, fractional anisotropy, resting state functional connectivity, positron emission tomography markers of glucose metabolism and β-amyloid (Aβ) burden, and a measure of vascular risk. Participants were also tested annually on a battery of clinical and cognitive tests (median follow-up = 5.0 years, SD = 1.66). We applied least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) Cox models to determine the minimum set of non-redundant markers that predicts subsequent clinical progression from normal to MCI, adjusting for age, sex, and education. RESULTS: 23 participants (9.2%) progressed to MCI over the study period (mean years of follow-up to diagnosis = 3.96, SD = 1.89). Progression was predicted by several brain markers, including reduced entorhinal thickness (hazard ratio, HR = 1.73), greater Aβ burden (HR = 1.58), lower default network connectivity (HR = 1.42), and smaller hippocampal volume (HR = 1.30). When cognitive test scores were added to the model, the aforementioned neuroimaging markers remained significant and lower striatum volume as well as lower scores on baseline memory and processing speed tests additionally contributed to progression. CONCLUSION: Among a large set of brain, vascular and cognitive markers, a subset of markers independently predicted progression from normal to MCI. These markers may enhance risk stratification by identifying clinically normal individuals who are most likely to develop clinical symptoms and would likely benefit most from therapeutic intervention.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".