MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3104103000 · doi:10.1016/s2666-7568(20)30015-5

Circadian disturbances in Alzheimer's disease progression: a prospective observational cohort study of community-based older adults

2020· article· en· W3104103000 on OpenAlexaff
Li Peng, Lei Gao, Arlen Gaba, Lei Yu, Longchang Cui, Wenqing Fan, Andrew Lim, David A. Bennett, Aron S. Buchman, Kun Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Healthy Longevity · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCircadian rhythm and melatonin
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institute on AgingBrightFocus Foundation
KeywordsActigraphyCircadian rhythmDementiaHazard ratioCognitive declineAlzheimer's diseaseCohortProspective cohort studyMedicinePsychologyProportional hazards modelCohort studyGerontologyInternal medicineDiseaseAudiologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Circadian disturbances are commonly seen in people with Alzheimer's disease and have been reported in individuals without symptoms of dementia but with Alzheimer's pathology. We aimed to assess the temporal relationship between circadian disturbances and Alzheimer's progression. METHODS: We did a prospective cohort study of 1401 healthy older adults (aged >59 years) enrolled in the Rush Memory and Aging Project (Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA) who had been followed up for up to 15 years. Participants underwent annual assessments of cognition (with a battery of 21 cognitive performance tests) and motor activities (with actigraphy). Four measures were extracted from actigraphy to quantify daily and circadian rhythmicity, which were amplitude of 24-h activity rhythm, acrophase (representing peak activity time), interdaily stability of 24-h activity rhythm, and intradaily variability for hourly fragmentation of activity rhythm. We used Cox proportional hazards models and logistic regressions to assess whether circadian disturbances predict an increased risk of incident Alzheimer's dementia and conversion of mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer's dementia. We used linear mixed-effects models to investigate how circadian rhythms changed longitudinally and how the change integrated to Alzheimer's progression. FINDINGS: Participants had a median age of 81·8 (IQR 76·3-85·7) years. Risk of developing Alzheimer's dementia was increased with lower amplitude (1 SD decrease, hazard ratio [HR] 1·39, 95% CI 1·19-1·62) and higher intradaily variability (1 SD increase, 1·22, 1·04-1·43). In participants with mild cognitive impairment, increased risk of Alzheimer's dementia was predicted by lower amplitude (1 SD decrease, HR 1·46, 95% CI 1·24-1·72), higher intradaily variability (1 SD increase, 1·36, 1·15-1·60), and lower interdaily stability (1 SD decrease, 1·21, 1·02-1·44). A faster transition to Alzheimer's dementia in participants with mild cognitive impairment was predicted by lower amplitude (1 SD decrease, odds ratio [OR] 2·08, 95% CI 1·53-2·93), increased intradaily variability (1 SD increase, 1·97, 1·43-2·79), and decreased interdaily stability (1 SD decrease, 1·35, 1·01-1·84). Circadian amplitude, acrophase, and interdaily stability progressively decreased over time, and intradaily variability progressively increased over time. Alzheimer's progression accelerated these aging effects by doubling or more than doubling the annual changes in these measures after the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment, and further doubled them after the diagnosis of Alzheimer's dementia. The longitudinal change of global cognition positively correlated with the longitudinal changes in amplitude and interdaily stability and negatively correlated with the longitudinal change in intradaily variability. INTERPRETATION: Our results indicate a link between circadian dysregulation and Alzheimer's progression, implying either a bidirectional relation or shared common underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health, and the BrightFocus Foundation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations169
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Healthy LongevitySame topicCircadian rhythm and melatoninFrench-language works237,207