Episodic Memory Impairment Mediates the Loss of Awareness in Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Loss of awareness is a common symptom in Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and responsible for a significant loss of functional abilities. The mechanisms underlying loss of awareness in AD is unknown, although previous findings have implicated dysfunction of primary executive functioning (EF) or episodic memory (EM) to be the cause. Therefore, our main study objective was to explore the involvement of EF and EM dysfunction in amyloid-related loss of awareness across the clinical spectrum of AD. METHODS: A total of 895 participants (362 clinically normal [CN], 422 people with mild cognitive impairment [MCI] and 111 with dementia) from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative were used for the analyses. A sub-analysis was performed in 202 participants who progressed in their clinical diagnosis from CN to MCI or MCI to dementia as well as dementia patients. Mediation models were used in each clinical group with awareness (assessed with the Everyday Cognitive function questionnaire) as a dependent variable to determine whether EF and/or EM would mediate the effect of amyloid on awareness. We also ran these analyses with subjective and informant complaints as dependent variables. Direct correlations between all variables were also performed. RESULTS: We found evidence for a decline in awareness across the groups, with increased awareness observed in the CN group and decreased awareness observed in the MCI and dementia groups. Our results showed that EM, and not EF, partially mediated the relationship between amyloid and awareness such that greater amyloid and lower EM performance was associated with lower awareness. When analyzing each group separately, this finding was only observed in the MCI group and in the group containing progressors and dementia patients. When repeating the analyses for subjective and informant complaints separately, the results were replicated only for the informant's complaints. DISCUSSION: Our results demonstrate that decline in EM and, to a lesser degree, EF, mediate the effect of amyloid on awareness. In line with previous studies demonstrating the development of anosognosia in the prodromal stage, our findings suggest that decreased awareness is the result of an inability for the participant to update his/her insight into his/her cognitive performance (i.e., demonstrating a petrified self).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".