The Influence of Cerebrovascular Pathology on Cluster Analysis of Neuropsychological Scores in Patients With Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The diagnostic entity of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is heterogeneous, highlighting the need for data-driven classification approaches to identify patient subgroups. However, these approaches can be strongly determined by sample characteristics and selected measures. Here, we applied a cluster analysis to an MCI patient database from a neuropsychology clinic to determine whether the inclusion of patients with MCI with vascular pathology would result in a different classification of subgroups. METHODS: Participants diagnosed with MCI (n = 166), vascular cognitive impairment-no dementia (n = 26), and a group of older adults with subjective cognitive concerns but no objective impairment (n = 144) were assessed using a full neuropsychological battery and other clinical measures. Cognitive measures were analyzed using a hierarchical cluster analysis and then a k-means approach, with resulting clusters compared on a range of demographic and clinical variables. RESULTS: We found a 4-factor solution: a cognitively intact cluster, a globally impaired cluster, an amnestic/visuospatial impairment cluster, and a mild, mixed-domain cluster. Interestingly, group differences in self-reported multilingualism emerged in the derived clusters that were not observed when comparing diagnostic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our results were generally consistent with previous studies using cluster analysis in MCI. Including patients with primarily cerebrovascular disease resulted in subtle differences in the derived clusters and revealed new insights into shared cognitive profiles of patients beyond diagnostic categories. These profiles should be further explored to develop individualized assessment and treatment approaches.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".