Informant‐based report of cognitive decline correlates with age‐adjusted hippocampal volume in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's dementia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Informant‐based measures can be effective screening tools for cognitive impairment. The Alzheimer’s Questionnaire (AQ; Sabbagh et al., 2010) is a subjective, informant‐based measure that captures five cognitive domains associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The AQ detects amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) and Alzheimer‐type dementia with high sensitivity and specificity, and has also been shown to predict amyloid burden. We hypothesize that a higher AQ score (greater functional impairment) correlates with lower hippocampal volumes. Method Retrospective chart review of 131 clinically referred patients with clinical diagnoses of aMCI or mild dementia due to AD was conducted. Diagnostic status (clinical diagnosis made by a neurologist), NeuroQuant measured MRI brain with percentile rank hippocampal volume, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) total, AQ‐Total score, and demographic variables were extracted from medical records. Spearman correlation was used to assess the relationship between hippocampal volume and AQ‐Total. As the AQ was used as a factor in assigning diagnostic status, thus the relationship between the AQ and diagnostic status was excluded from analyses. Result The analyzed sample was 53% female with a mean of 73.96±10.48 years of age and 14.74±3.51 years of education. Sample means for the MoCA and AQ score were 22.16±4.39 and 10.62±5.29, respectively. Correlation between AQ score and HC volume (as reported as percentile) revealed an inverse relationship, such that higher AQ scores were associated with smaller hippocampal volumes (r =‐0.40 (95% CI ‐0.54 to ‐0.24), p<0.0001). Conclusion In a mixed‐clinical sample of patients presenting to an outpatient memory disorders center, higher endorsements of functional impairments by caregivers were significantly associated with smaller hippocampal volumes. When used in conjunction with other available measures, these findings further support the role of the AQ in clinical decision‐making, and demonstrate an additional relationship with established AD biomarker outcomes with volumetric MRI.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".