MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283380966 · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2022.811739

Differential Patterns of Domain-Specific Cognitive Complaints and Awareness Across the Alzheimer’s Disease Spectrum

2022· article· en· W4283380966 on OpenAlexafffund
Federica Cacciamani, Valérie Godefroy, Simona M. Brambati, Raffaella Migliaccio, Stéphane Epelbaum, Maxime Montembeault

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Aging Neuroscience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University InstituteUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNational Institute on AgingFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthAlzheimer SocietyFondation pour la Recherche sur AlzheimerGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationPfizerBiogenBioClinicaF. Hoffmann-La RocheUniversity of Southern CaliforniaNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaU.S. Department of DefenseEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer's AssociationFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsAnosognosiaCognitionPsychologyExecutive functionsAudiologyDementiaAlzheimer's diseaseEpisodic memoryDiseaseClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Characterizing self- and informant-reported cognitive complaints, as well as awareness of cognitive decline (ACD), is useful for an early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, complaints and ACD related to cognitive functions other than memory are poorly studied. Furthermore, it remains unclear which source of information is the most useful to distinguish various groups on the AD spectrum. Methods: Self- and informant-reported complaints were measured with the Everyday Cognition questionnaire (ECog-Subject and ECog-StudyPartner) in four domains (memory, language, visuospatial, and executive). ACD was measured as the subject-informant discrepancy in the four ECog scores. We compared the ECog and ACD scores across cognitive domains between four groups: 71 amyloid-positive individuals with amnestic AD, 191 amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or 118 cognitively normal (CN), and 211 amyloid-negative CN controls, selected from the ADNI database. Receiver operating characteristic curves analysis was performed to evaluate the accuracy of the ECog and ACD scores in discriminating clinical groups. Results: Self- and informant-reported complaints were generally distributed as follows: memory, language, executive, and visuospatial (from the most severe to the least severe). Both groups of CN participants presented on average more memory and language complaints than their informant. MCI participants showed good agreement with their informants. AD participants presented anosognosia in all domains, but especially for the executive domain. The four ECog-StudyPartner sub-scores allowed excellent discrimination between groups in almost all classifications and performed significantly better than the other two classifiers considered. The ACD was excellent in distinguishing the participants with AD from the two groups of CN participants. The ECog-Subject was the least accurate in discriminating groups in four of the six classifications performed. Conclusion: In research, the study of complaint and anosognosia should not be reduced solely to the memory domain. In clinical practice, non-amnestic complaints could also be linked to Alzheimer’s disease. The presence of an informant also seems necessary given its accuracy as a source of information.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Aging NeuroscienceSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207