Do informant-reported subjective cognitive complaints predict progression to mild cognitive impairment and dementia better than self-reported complaints in old adults? A meta-analytical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Subjective cognitive complaints (SCCs) are considered a risk factor for objective cognitive decline and conversion to dementia. The aim of this study was to determine whether self-reported or informant-reported SCCs best predict progression to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and/or dementia. METHODS: We reviewed prospective longitudinal studies of Cognitively Unimpaired (CU) older adults with self-reported and informant-reported SCCs at baseline, assessed by questions or questionnaires that considered the transition to MCI and/or dementia. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled estimates and 95% CIs. RESULTS: Both self-reported and informant-reported SCCs are associated with an elevated risk of transition from CU to MCI and/or dementia. The association appears stronger and more robust for informant-reported data [1.38, with a 95% CI of 1.16 -1.64, p < 0.001] than for self-reported data [1.27 (95% CI 1.06 - 1.534, p = 0.011]. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that corroborated information from one informant could provide important details for distinguishing between normal aging and clinical states.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".