Regional brain atrophy and cognitive decline depend on definition of subjective cognitive decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) may be at increased risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, not all studies have observed this increased risk. This project examined whether four common methods of defining SCD yields different patterns of atrophy and future cognitive decline between cognitively normal older adults with (SCD+ ) and without SCD (SCD-). METHODS: Data from 273 Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative cognitively normal older adults were examined. To operationalize SCD we used four common methods: Cognitive Change Index (CCI), Everyday Cognition Scale (ECog), ECog + Worry, and Worry. Voxel-based logistic regressions were applied to deformation-based morphology results to determine if regional atrophy between SCD- and SCD+ differed by SCD definition. Linear mixed-effects models were used to evaluate differences in future cognitive decline. RESULTS: Results varied between the four methods of defining SCD. Left hippocampal grading was more similar to AD in SCD+ than SCD- when using the CCI (p = .041) and Worry (p = .021) definitions. The right (p=.008) and left (p=.003) superior temporal regions had smaller volumes in SCD+ than SCD-, but only with the ECog. SCD+ was associated with greater future cognitive decline measured by Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale, but only with the CCI definition. In contrast, only the ECog definition of SCD was associated with future decline on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that the various methods used to differentiate between SCD- and SCD+ influence whether volume differences and findings of cognitive decline are observed between groups in this retrospective analysis.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".