Gender/Sex Differences in the Association of Mild Behavioral Impairment with Cognitive Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While the gender/sex differences in neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia population are well described, gender/sex differences in mild behavioral impairment (MBI) in dementia-free populations and the relationship to cognitive performance and to subsequent cognitive decline have not been studied. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore gender/sex differences in the association of MBI with the level of cognitive performance and its rate of decline in a dementia-free cohort. METHODS: We studied 8,181 older adults enrolled in the online PROTECT UK Study. MBI was assessed using the MBI Checklist and cognition was measured by digit span, paired associate learning, spatial working memory, and verbal reasoning. Statistical analysis was conducted using linear regression models and linear mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Out of 8,181 individuals (median age 63 years, 73% females), 11% of females and 14% of males had MBI syndrome. Females exhibited less often symptoms of decreased motivation (45% versus 36% in males), impulse dyscontrol (40% versus 44% in males; p = 0.001) and social inappropriateness (12% versus 15%; p < 0.001), while they showed more often symptoms of emotional dysregulation (45% versus 36%; p < 0.001). The associations of MBI domains with some measures of cognitive performance and decline were stronger in males than females, with the exception of the association of emotional dysregulation with the rate of cognitive decline in verbal reasoning, which was present exclusively in females. CONCLUSION: MBI may influence cognition to a greater extent in males than in females. We propose that predictors and biomarkers of dementia should consider gender/sex as an effect modifier.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".