MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206639049 · doi:10.1002/alz.056624

Associations of neuropsychiatric symptoms with cognitive impairment: The utility of the mild behavioral impairment checklist and the neuropsychiatric interview questionnaire in a cognitive neurology clinic population

2021· article· en· W4206639049 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sophie Hu, Scott B. Patten, Anna Charlton, Karyn Fischer, Gordon H. Fick, Eric E. Smith, Zahinoor Ismail

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaNeurologyCognitionPsychiatryCognitive impairmentBehavioral neurologyPsychosisPopulationExecutive dysfunctionClinical psychologyPsychologyChecklistNeuropsychiatryMedicineNeuropsychologyInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Mild Behavioral Impairment is characterized by later life emergent and persistent neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS). MBI domains include impaired drive/motivation, affective dysregulation, impulse dyscontrol, social inappropriateness, and psychosis. We aimed to compare the relationship between NPS and cognition in patients with subjective cognitive decline (SCD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia, using the Mild Behavioral Impairment‐Checklist (MBI‐C) and Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI‐Q). MBI domains were derived from the NPI‐Q using a published algorithm. Method Data was examined from 1238 patients in the PROMPT Cognitive Neurology Clinic registry at the University of Calgary. NPS were characterized at baseline using the MBI‐C (n=474) and NPI‐Q (n=1040). Forward stepwise linear regression models were conducted to compare MBI‐C and NPI‐Q total and domain scores with cognition as assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Age, diagnosis, sex and education were included as covariates. Result Overall, 90% of patients had an MBI‐C total score>0 and 55.91% of patients scored above cutoff (>7). MBI prevalence (based on cutoff) was 37% in patients with SCD, 54% in MCI, and 62% of dementia patients scored above the cutoff. By domain, over half had impaired drive/motivation (59.57%), affective dysregulation (68.66%) or impulse dyscontrol (64.11%), while relatively fewer had social inappropriateness (33.97%) or psychotic symptoms (22.25%). For the NPI‐Q, 67.98% of patients had a total score>0 including 60.36% of SCD, 60.00% of MCI and 74.95% of dementia. By domain, over half had affective dysregulation (61%) or impulse dyscontrol (58.50%) while less than half had impaired drive/motivation (44.31%), social inappropriateness (23.19%) or psychosis (10.18%). With increasing diagnostic severity, age, MBI‐C and NPI‐Q scores increased, while MoCA scores decreased. Greater MBI‐C and NPI‐Q total and domain scores were significantly associated with lower MoCA score. Of all domains, psychosis had the strongest association with impaired cognition using both measures. Age, sex and diagnosis were modifiers for the MBI‐C. Conclusion NPS are associated with poorer cognition regardless of diagnostic status. MBI domain scores are more strongly associated with impaired cognition than total scores. These findings suggest that the MBI‐C has utility in capturing NPS in this specialty clinic population, as a complement to the NPI‐Q.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→