Exploration of salient risk factors involved in mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a prevalent and complex condition among older adults that often progresses into Alzheimer's disease (AD). Although MCI affects individuals differently, there are specific indicators of risk commonly associated with the development of MCI. The present study explored the prevalence of seven established MCI risk categories within a large sample of older adults with and without MCI. We explored trends across the different diagnostic groups and extracted the most salient risk factors related to MCI using partial least squares. Neuropsychological risk categories showed the largest differences across groups, with the cognitively unimpaired groups outperforming the MCI groups on all measures. Apolipoprotein E4 (ApoE4) carriers were significantly more common among the more severe MCI group, whereas ApoE4 non‐carriers were more common in the healthy controls. Participants with subjective and objective cognitive impairment were trending towards AD‐like cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) biomarker levels. Increased age, being male and having fewer years of education were identified as important risk factors of MCI. Higher CSF tau levels were correlated with ApoE4 carrier status, age and a decrease in the ability to carry out daily activities across all diagnostic groups. Amyloid beta 1–42 CSF concentration was positively correlated with cognitive and memory performance and non‐ApoE4 carrier status regardless of diagnostic status. Unlike previous research, poor cardiovascular health or being female had no relation to MCI. Altogether, the results highlighted risk factors that were specific to persons with MCI, findings that will inform future research in healthy aging, MCI and AD.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".