Mild behavioral impairment and its relation to tau pathology in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mild behavioral impairment (MBI) is suggested as risk marker for neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Recently, pathologic tau deposition in the brain has been shown closely related to clinical manifestations, such as cognitive deficits. Yet, associations between tau pathology and MBI have rarely been investigated. It is further debated if MBI precedes cognitive deficits in AD. Here, we explored potential mechanisms by which MBI is related to AD, this by studying associations between MBI and tau in preclinical AD. In all, 50 amyloid-β-positive cognitively unimpaired subjects (part of the BioFINDER-2 study) underwent MBI-checklist (MBI-C) to assess MBI, and the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale – Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) delayed word recall (ADAS-DR) to assess episodic memory. Early tau pathology was determined using tau-PET ([18F]RO948 retention in entorhinal cortex/hippocampus) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) P-tau181. Regression models were used to test for associations. We found that higher tau-PET signal in the entorhinal cortex/hippocampus and CSF P-tau181 levels were associated with higher MBI-C scores (β = 0.010, SE = 0.003, p = 0.003 and β = 1.263, SE = 0.446, p = 0.007, respectively). When MBI-C and ADAS-DR were entered together in the regression models, tau-PET (β = 0.009, p = 0.009) and CSF P-tau181 (β = 0.408, p = 0.006) were predicted by MBI-C, but not ADAS-DR. We conclude that in preclinical AD, MBI is associated with tau independently from memory deficits. This denotes MBI as an important early clinical manifestation related to tau pathology in AD.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".