Characteristics of subjective cognitive decline associated with amyloid positivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The evidence for characteristics of persons with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) associated with amyloid positivity is limited. METHODS: In 1640 persons with SCD from 20 Amyloid Biomarker Study cohort, we investigated the associations of SCD-specific characteristics (informant confirmation, domain-specific complaints, concerns, feelings of worse performance) demographics, setting, apolipoprotein E gene (APOE) ε4 carriership, and neuropsychiatric symptoms with amyloid positivity. RESULTS: Between cohorts, amyloid positivity in 70-year-olds varied from 10% to 76%. Only older age, clinical setting, and APOE ε4 carriership showed univariate associations with increased amyloid positivity. After adjusting for these, lower education was also associated with increased amyloid positivity. Only within a research setting, informant-confirmed complaints, memory complaints, attention/concentration complaints, and no depressive symptoms were associated with increased amyloid positivity. Feelings of worse performance were associated with less amyloid positivity at younger ages and more at older ages. DISCUSSION: Next to age, setting, and APOE ε4 carriership, SCD-specific characteristics may facilitate the identification of amyloid-positive individuals.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".