Mild Behavioral Impairment and Subjective Cognitive Decline Predict Cognitive and Functional Decline
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mild behavioral impairment (MBI) and subjective cognitive decline (SCD) are dementia risk states, and potentially represent neurobehavioral and neurocognitive manifestations, respectively, of early stage neurodegeneration. Both MBI and SCD predict incident cognitive decline and dementia, are associated with known dementia biomarkers, and are both represented in the NIA-AA research framework for AD in Stage 2 (preclinical disease). OBJECTIVE: To assess the associations of MBI and SCD, alone and in combination, with incident cognitive and functional decline in a population of older adults. We tested the hypothesis that MBI and SCD confer additive risk for decline. METHODS: Cognitively normal participants were followed up annually at Alzheimer's Disease Centers. Logistic regression assessed the relationship between baseline classification (MBI-SCD-, MBI-SCD+, MBI+SCD-, or MBI+SCD+) and 3-year outcome. RESULTS: Of 2,769 participants (mean age=76), 1,536 were MBI-SCD-, 254 MBI-SCD+, 743 MBI+SCD-, and 236 MBI+SCD+. At 3 years, 349 (12.6%) declined to CDR >0, including 23.1% of the MBI+group, 23.5% of the SCD+group, and 30.9% of the intersection group of both MBI+and SCD+participants. Compared to SCD-MBI-, we observed an ordinal progression in risk (ORs [95% CI]): 3.61 [2.42-5.38] for MBI-SCD+ (16.5% progression), 4.76 [3.57-6.34] for MBI+SCD- (20.7%), and 8.15 [5.71-11.64] for MBI+SCD+(30.9%). CONCLUSION: MBI and SCD together were associated with the greatest risk of decline. These complementary dementia risk syndromes can be used as simple and scalable methods to identify high-risk patients for workup or for clinical trial enrichment.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it