A Systematic Review of Neuroimaging Studies Comparing Individuals with Subjective Cognitive Decline to Healthy Controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) are hypothesized to be the earliest along the cognitive continuum between healthy aging and Alzheimer's disease (AD), although more research is needed on this topic. Given that treatment approaches may be most effective pre-clinically, a primary objective of emerging research is to identify biological markers of SCD using neuroimaging methods. OBJECTIVE: The current review aimed to comprehensively present the neuroimaging studies on SCD to date. METHODS: PubMed and PsycINFO databases were searched for neuroimaging studies of individuals with SCD. Quality assessments were completed using the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies. RESULTS: In total, 62 neuroimaging studies investigating differences between participants with SCD and healthy controls were identified. Specifically, the number of studies were as follows: 36 MRI, 6 PET, 8 MRI/PET, 4 EEG, 7 MEG, and 1 SPECT. Across neuroimaging modalities, 48 of the 62 included studies revealed significant differences in brain structure and/or function between groups. CONCLUSION: Neuroimaging methods can identify differences between healthy controls and individuals with SCD. However, inconsistent results were found within and between neuroimaging modalities. Discrepancies across studies may be best accounted for by methodological differences, notably variable criteria for SCD, and differences in participant characteristics and risk factors for AD. Clinic based recruitment and cross-sectional study design were common and may bias the literature. Future neuroimaging investigations of SCD should consistently incorporate the standardized research criteria for SCD (as recommended by the SCD-Initiative), include more details of their SCD sample and their symptoms, and examine groups longitudinally.
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 | 0.010 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".