Personality Changes in Patients with Beginning Alzheimer Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate personality traits in patients with Alzheimer disease, compared with mentally healthy control subjects. We compared both current personality characteristics using structured interviews as well as current and previous personality traits as assessed by proxies. METHOD: Fifty-four patients with mild Alzheimer disease and 64 control subjects described their personality traits using the Structured Interview for the Five-Factor Model. Family members filled in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, Form R, to evaluate their proxies' current personality traits, compared with 5 years before the estimated beginning of Alzheimer disease or 5 years before the control subjects. RESULTS: After controlling for age, the Alzheimer disease group presented significantly higher scores than normal control subjects on current neuroticism, and significantly lower scores on current extraversion, openness, and conscientiousness, while no significant difference was observed on agreeableness. A similar profile, though less accentuated, was observed when considering personality traits as the patients' proxies remembered them. Diachronic personality assessment showed again significant differences between the 2 groups for the same 4 domains, with important personality changes only for the Alzheimer disease group. CONCLUSIONS: Group comparison and retrospective personality evaluation are convergent. Significant personality changes follow a specific trend in patients with Alzheimer disease and contrast with the stability generally observed in mentally healthy people in their personality profile throughout their lives. Whether or not the personality assessment 5 years before the current status corresponds to an early sign of Alzheimer disease or real premorbid personality differences in people who later develop Alzheimer disease requires longitudinal studies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".