Self- versus informant-report of cognitive decline in mild cognitive impairment: Concordance with cognitive and functional performance.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Debate continues regarding the use of self- versus informant-report to diagnose mild cognitive impairment (MCI) with studies reporting patients both overestimating and underestimating their abilities relative to informants. We assessed concordance of self- versus informant-report of cognitive decline with objective cognitive and functional performance in the participants of the preventing Alzheimer's dementia with cognitive remediation plus transcranial direct current stimulation in mild cognitive impairment and depression randomized controlled trial (PACt-MD). METHOD: Three hundred six participants with MCI, and their informants, reported on cognitive decline; the participants also completed a comprehensive assessment of objective cognitive and functional performance. Based on the discrepancy between self- versus informant-report of cognitive decline, we grouped participants into categories of underestimators, congruent estimators, and overestimators. RESULTS: Informant- but not self-reported cognitive decline significantly correlated with objective cognitive performance. There were 68 underestimators, 94 congruent estimators, and 144 overestimators. Underestimators had significantly lower objective cognitive performance and functional performance than congruent estimators and overestimators. Cognitive performance significantly predicted functional performance in all three groups, and the relationship between cognitive and functional performance was moderated by the discrepancy between self- and informant-report. CONCLUSIONS: We showed a poor concordance among self-report of cognitive decline and both informant-report of cognitive decline and cognitive performance in patients with MCI. Our findings highlight clinical and research value in the assessment and consideration of degree of discrepancy between self- and informant-reports of cognitive decline in MCI. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".