MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206247559 · doi:10.1002/alz.050559

Prevalence of mild behavioral impairment subdomains: A meta‐analysis

2021· article· en· W4206247559 on OpenAlexaff
Yining Pan, Yat Fung Shea, Zahinoor Ismail, Victor OK Li, Jacqueline C. K. Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisCognitive impairmentPooled analysisMedicineInternal medicineConfidence intervalPrevalenceCognitionClinical psychologyEpidemiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Mild behavioral impairment (MBI) is a neurobehavioral syndrome characterized by later life emergence of neuropsychiatric symptoms. Our previous meta‐analysis showed that the pooled prevalence of MBI among cognitively normal (CN), subjective cognitive impairment (SCI) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) subjects are 17%, 35.8% and 45.5% respectively. The main aim of this study is to calculate the pooled prevalence of MBI subdomains. Method A search of the literature on MBI in MCI, CN, and SCI and CN but at risk (CN‐AR) subjects published between 1 January 2003 and 14 January 2021 was conducted. Meta‐analysis using a random effects model was performed to determine the pooled estimate of the prevalence of MBI subdomains. Meta‐regression was performed to identify factors contributing to the variance of prevalence rate. Result Nine studies conducted among 11568 subjects (9259 CN, 1057 SCI & 1252 MCI) with retrievable subdomain data underwent meta‐analysis, revealing pooled prevalence of affective dysregulation (AFD), impulse dyscontrol (IDS), decreased motivation (DMT), social inappropriateness (SIP) and abnormal perception/ thought (APT) of 31.2% (95% CI 24.6‐38.5%), 27.9% (95% CI 22.2‐34.6%), 11.5% (95% CI 7‐g18.5%), 7.4% (95% CI 4.1‐12.9%), and 3.4% (95% CI 1.7‐6.7%) respectively. Although all subdomains demonstrate ordinal increase in pooled prevalence from CN, SCI and MCI subgroups, meta‐regression demonstrated no significant difference in subdomains prevalence among cognitive subgroups. The pooled prevalence of AFD and IDS are greater than that of SIP and APT among all cognitive subgroups. Among MCI subjects, racial group (Asian vs. Caucasians) could account for variance between the studies in prevalence of IDS (coefficient 1.5908, 95% CI 0.7850‐2.3966, R2 analogue 0.63, p<0.001). Conclusion AFD and IDS are two most prevalent MBI subdomains and remain the same with cognitive deterioration. This finding is potentially relevant to clinical practice.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.054
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207