MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205920848 · doi:10.1002/alz.055842

Emotion regulation in mild cognitive impairment and subjective cognitive decline

2021· article· en· W4205920848 on OpenAlexaff
Linda Mah, Susan Vandermorris, Nicolaas Paul L.G. Verhoeff, Nathan Herrmann

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorryCognitionCognitive declineRuminationPsychologyNeuropsychologyCognitive reappraisalDementiaEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceClinical psychologyDiseasePsychiatryMedicineAnxietyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Our previous research in emotional verbal memory in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and work from others suggest the hypothesis that emotion dysregulation is a signature of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) risk. Whether subjective cognitive decline (SCD), conceptualized as a possible preclinical stage of AD, is associated with emotion dysregulation is unknown. In the current study, we compared responses on the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ) and behavioural responses on a threat task amongst SCD, MCI, and cognitively unimpaired (CU) older adults. Methods The sample included 146 older adults free of lifetime history of psychiatric illness/neurological conditions: 33 MCI [17F, age 72.3(SD7.6)] defined as subjective memory/other cognitive complaints, impaired neuropsychological (NP) test performance, and functional independence, 71 SCD [49F, age 71.1(SD6.3)] based on subjective memory decline with worry with normal NP performance, and 42 CU [27F, age 70.6(SD6.8)] based on absence of subjective memory decline and normal NP test scores. Participants completed the CERQ which assesses cognitive coping strategies in negative emotional situations. A subset (19 MCI, 43 SCD, 19 CU) completed a computerized task in which they rated a physical feature or threat level of faces with varying degrees of threat. Multivariate ANOVA was used to examine group differences, followed by Sidak‐adjusted post hoc comparisons. Results On the CERQ, groups differed in use of catastrophizing [F(2, 142)=3.51, P=.032], with a trend for use of rumination (P=.07), attributable to greater use of both strategies in MCI compared to CU (P=.04). On the threat task, groups differed in response latencies to judging physical features of threatening faces relative to neutral [F(2, 78)=3.17, P=.048)]. Relative to CU, SCD participants were slower to make physical judgements of threatening faces compared to neutral (P=.026). Conclusions Older adults with SCD do not report greater use of maladaptive emotion regulation strategies compared to CU. However, alterations in behavioural responses to threat versus neutral in SCD may represent deficits in regulating attention towards negative emotional information, similar to mood‐congruent cognitive biases observed in depression. These preliminary data highlight the need to increase our understanding of explicit and implicit emotional processing in older adults at risk for AD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207