The association between brain‐derived neurotrophic factor and improved cognition in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease patients in an exercise‐primed transcranial‐direct current stimulation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) has been associated with cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a non‐invasive brain stimulation, has been found to improve cognitive functions in AD/MCI, particularly after priming. While the mechanism of tDCS response remains unclear, BDNF has been proposed to be involved with the beneficial effects of tDCS. However, few studies have investigated the direct relationship between cognition and BDNF in individuals receiving tDCS. With data from an ongoing clinical trial (the EXPRESS study), we examined the relationship between BDNF and changes in cognition before and after intervention in individuals with MCI/mild AD. Method Participants completed a 5‐week, blinded, randomized trial investigating the effects of exercise priming on tDCS. The Montreal Cognitive Asssessment (MoCA), to assess global cognition, was administered and blood samples were collected to quantify serum BDNF at baseline and endpoint visits. Baseline BDNF concentrations were log‐transformed prior to analyses. A Pearson’s partial correlation was used to assess the relationship between baseline BDNF and change in MoCA (ΔMoCA) over time across all participants. Result In 18 participants (10 males [55.6%], mean [±SD] age 73.9±8.5 years, education 17.1±2.0 years, and baseline MoCA score 21.5 ± 3.5), mean baseline BDNF concentration was 116.0 ± 40.9 (ng/mL). A Pearson’s partial correlation, controlling for age, showed a significant positive correlation between baseline BDNF concentrations and ΔMoCA score over time (rpartial(15) = .517, p = 0.034). Conclusion Higher baseline BDNF levels were correlated with greater improvement in global cognition over time in MCI/mild AD patients. This finding contributes to current literature that suggests BDNF as a therapeutic target in AD treatment. Further analyses upon unblinding will be done to evaluate the predictive capacity of baseline BDNF concentrations on cognitive improvement across treatment groups.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".