Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy Is Associated With Emotional Dysregulation, Impulse Dyscontrol, and Apathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) causes cognitive decline, but it is not known whether it is associated with neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS). Methods and Results Participants with CAA, mild cognitive impairment, mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, and normal cognition were recruited from stroke and dementia clinics and community advertising. NPS were captured using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire short form. The number and total severity (number multiplied by severity of each symptom [mild, moderate, or severe]) of NPS were analyzed using generalized linear regression with a negative binomial link and multiple linear regression, adjusting for age, sex, and education. A total of 109 participants (43 with CAA, 15 with Alzheimer's disease, 28 with mild cognitive impairment, and 23 with normal cognition) (mean age 71.1 [SD=7.6]; 53.2% male) were included. The most frequent NPS in CAA were depression/dysphoria (48.8%), irritability/lability (37.2%), agitation/aggression (37.2%), apathy/indifference (34.9%), and anxiety (32.6%). In adjusted models, patients with CAA had 3.2 times (95% CI, 1.7-6.0) more NPS symptoms and 3.1 units (95% CI, 1.0-5.1) higher expected severity score. The number of NPS was similar to patients with mild cognitive impairment (3.2 times higher than controls) but less than in patients with Alzheimer's disease dementia (4.1 times higher than controls). Within patients with CAA, there were 1.20 times (95% CI, 1.01-1.32) more NPS per 1% increase in white matter hyperintensity as a percentage of intracranial volume. Conclusions NPS are common in CAA, with a similar prevalence as in mild cognitive impairment. The association of the total number of NPS with higher white matter hyperintensity volume suggests that white matter damage may underlie some of these symptoms.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".