MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4292622949 · doi:10.1101/2022.08.18.22278960

Subjective Cognitive Decline is a Better Marker for Future Cognitive Decline in Females than in Males

2022· preprint· en· W4292622949 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Oliver, Cassandra Morrison, Farooq Kamal, Jillian Graham, Mahsa Dadar

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive declineCognitionEpisodic memoryDiseaseEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceNeuropsychologyMedicineCognitive testPsychologyGerontologyClinical psychologyInternal medicineDementiaPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The identification of biomarkers and other mechanisms for early detection of Alzheimer’s disease is critical to the development and further advancement of therapies and interventions targeted at managing symptoms and tracking the pathophysiology of disease. The endorsement of subjective cognitive decline (SCD) has emerged as a potential indicator of early change in cognitive status that may be predictive of future impairment at a time when measurable declines in neuropsychological performance cannot be detected. While there are numerous findings revealing sex differences in the prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease, there is a paucity of research examining sex differences in SCD. Therefore, the goal of this project is to determine if the relationship between the endorsement of SCD and future cognitive changes differ as a function of biological sex. Methods A sample of 3019 male and female healthy older adults (2188 without SCD, 831 with SCD), with a mean follow-up time of 5.7 years, were included from the Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center Research Sharing Hub. Linear regressions were performed to determine group differences in baseline cognitive scores, while linear mixed effects models were computed to determine group differences in the rate of cognitive change over time. Results Individuals endorsing SCD had significantly lower baseline cognitive scores and increased rates of decline in all cognitive domains compared to those without SCD. Males exhibited significantly lower scores in baseline performance in global cognition, episodic memory, semantic memory, and perceptual speed regardless of SCD classification. Females with SCD were found to decline at significantly faster rates than both males with SCD and males and females without SCD in all cognitive domains over 15-year follow-up. Conclusions SCD is related to lower baseline cognitive performance and faster cognitive decline compared to those who do not endorse SCD. Females with SCD have the fastest rate of decline suggesting that SCD may be more predictive of future decline in females than in males. Therapeutic interventions targeting SCD in females may aid in the mitigation of sex disparities in AD prevalence.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→