The role of worry in subjective cognitive decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is defined as self‐report of memory or other cognitive decline with normal test performance, but there is lack of consensus regarding operational criteria for SCD. One fundamental question is whether perception of cognitive decline is sufficient to establish SCD, or whether accompanying concern or worry about the cognitive change is another core feature. The goal of the current study was to characterize clinical and neuroimaging characteristics of older adults with subjective memory decline with worry (SCD+W) and without worry (SCD‐W). Methods Participants were diagnosed based on psychiatric/medical assessment, neuropsychological (NP) test performance, and responses to 1)“Do you feel like your memory is becoming worse?”; 2)“If so, are you worried?”. The sample included 71 SCD+W [49F, age 71.1(SD6.3)] and 20 SCD‐W [15F, age 72.5(SD6.9)] based on normal NP scores and responses of yes/yes and yes/no respectively, 33 MCI [17F, age 72.3(SD7.6)] defined as subjective cognitive complaints, impaired NP performance and functional independence, and 16 CU [8F, age 69.2(SD7.2)]] based on normal NP and absence of subjective memory decline/worry. Participants completed subjective memory, depression, state‐trait anxiety, and health anxiety scales. Resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs‐fMRI) was acquired in a subset [24 SCD+W, 12 SCD‐W, 12 CU] to assess default mode network (DMN) connectivity. Group effects were evaluated using multivariate ANOVA followed by Sidak‐adjusted post‐hoc comparisons. Results Relative to CU, SCD+W and MCI participants endorsed poorer subjective memory (P’s<.001), greater trait anxiety (P’s<.05) and greater health anxiety (P’s<.02). SCD‐W and CU did not differ on any measure. On rs‐fMRI, a significant group effect was found for DMN‐parahippocampal connectivity [F(2, 45)=5.35, P=.008], which was attributable to lower DMN‐parahippocampal connectivity in SCD+W compared to CU (P=.006). This finding remained significant with trait anxiety or health anxiety included as covariates. Conclusions Similar to MCI, SCD+W participants showed poorer subjective memory ability and greater trait and health anxiety, while SCD‐W did not differ from CU. Disrupted neural connectivity was found in SCD+W only, suggesting worry may define a subgroup of SCD patients with distinct neurobiology than those without worry. Longitudinal studies are needed to determine the prognostic significance of worry.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".