Subjective cognitive decline is associated with a higher risk of objective cognitive decline: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is considered as an independent risk factor for objective cognitive impairment, such as dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI), but the mechanism is unclear. Methods The current study consisted of two parts, the first of which included 1,010 older adults with SCD and 535 normal controls and was followed for 1 year. The second cross-sectional study included 94 older adults with SCD and 64 healthy controls. Unlike the first cohort, subjects in the second study underwent magnetic resonance imaging and had more detailed neuropsychological tests, such as Mini- mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Digit Span, Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT), Associative Learning Test (ALT), Verbal Fluency (VF), Wechsler's filling and Wechsler's building blocks. Results In cohort 1, we found that SCD had a higher risk of objective cognitive impairment compared to normal controls (X 2 = 20.354, p = 0.002), and the results of Cox Regression analysis also suggest that SCD was a risk factor for objective cognitive decline ( p < 0.001, HR = 2.608, 95%CI: 2.213–3.075). In study 2, we found that the scores of MoCA, digit span, verbal fluency, and Wechsler's filling of SCD elderly were significantly lower than those of normal controls, but the cortical thickness of the rostral middle frontal gyrus (RMFG) was significantly higher than that of normal controls ( p < 0.05). Conclusions SCD is a cognition-related disease with multi-cognitive domain impairment, which is associated with a higher risk of objective cognitive impairment. Moreover, the increased cortical thickness of the left rostral middle frontal gyrus (RMFG) might be an important mechanism of cognitive decline in SCD.
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".