Characterizing mild cognitive impairment to predict incident dementia in adults with bipolar disorder: What should the benchmark be?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Although mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is generally considered a risk state for dementia, its prevalence and association with dementia are impacted by the number of tests and cut-points used to assess cognition and define “impairment,” and sources of norms. Here, we investigate how these methodological variations impact estimates of incident dementia in adults with bipolar disorder (BD), a vulnerable population with pre-existing cognitive deficits and increased dementia risk. Method: Neuropsychological data from 148 adults with BD and 13,610 healthy controls (HC) were drawn from the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center. BD participants’ scores were standardized against published norms and again using regression-based norms generated from HC within the same catchment area as individual BD patients (“site-specific norms”), varying the number of within-domain tests (one vs. two) and the cut-points (−1 vs. −1.5 SD) used to operationalize MCI. Results: Site-specific norms were more sensitive to incident dementia (88.6%–94.3%) than published norms (74.3%–88.6%), but only when using a “single test” definition of impairment. Specificity (22.1%–74.3%), accuracy (37.8%–68.9%), and positive predictive values (26.1%–38.3%) were overall poor. Applying a “single test” definition of impairment resulted in better negative predictive values using site-specific (92.3%–93.3%) than published norms (83.6%–86.2%), and a substantial increase in relative risk of incident dementia relative to published norms. Conclusions: Neuropsychologists should define “impairment” as scores below −1.0 or −1.5 SD on at least two within-domain measures when using published norms to interpret cognitive performance in adults with BD.
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 | 0.019 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".