Neuropsychological Equivalence of the Clinical Diagnosis of Mild Cognitive Impairment in the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set and Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Our understanding of Alzheimer's disease may be improved by harmonizing data from large cohort studies of older adults. Differences in the way clinical conditions, like mild cognitive impairment (MCI), are diagnosed may lead to variability among participants that share the same diagnostic label. This variability presents a challenge for cohort harmonization and may lead to inconsistency in research findings. Little research to date has explored the equivalence of the diagnostic label of MCI across 2 of the largest and most influential cohort studies in the USA: the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) and the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). METHODS: Participants with MCI due to presumed Alzheimer's disease from the NACC Uniform Data Set (n = 789) and ADNI (n = 131) were compared on demographic, psychological, and functional variables, as well as on an abbreviated neuropsychological battery common to the 2 data sets. RESULTS: Though similar in terms of age, education, and functional status, the NACC sample was more diverse (17.4% non-White participants vs. 7.6% in ADNI; χ2 = 7.923, p = 0.005) and tended to perform worse on some cognitive tests. In particular, participants diagnosed with MCI in NACC were more likely to have clinically significant impairments on language measures (26.36-31.18%) than MCI participants in ADNI (16.03-19.85%). DISCUSSION: The current findings suggest important differences in cognitive performances between 2 large MCI cohorts, likely reflective of differences in diagnostic criteria used in these 2 studies, as well as differences in sample compositions. Such diagnostic heterogeneity may make harmonizing data across these cohorts challenging. However, application of shared psychometric criteria across studies may lead to closer equivalence of MCI groups. Such approaches could pave the way for cohort harmonization and enable "big data" analytic approaches to understanding Alzhei-mer's to be developed.
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 | 0.041 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".