Subjective Cognitive Decline Is Associated With Lower Baseline Cognition and Increased Rate of Cognitive Decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is a known risk factor for Alzheimer's disease. However, little research has examined whether healthy older adults with SCD (SCD+) exhibit lower cognition and increased rates of cognitive decline compared to those without SCD (SCD-). The goal of this study was to examine if cognitive change over a 15-year period differs between SCD+ and SCD-. METHOD: 3,019 cognitively normal older adults (831 SCD+) from 3 Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center cohort studies were followed annually for up to a maximum of 15 years. Due to attrition, the average follow-up time was 5.7 years. Cognition was measured using z-scores of global cognition, episodic memory, semantic memory, perceptual speed, visuospatial ability, and working memory. Linear mixed-effects models investigated whether SCD was associated with cognitive change. RESULTS: Both baseline cognition and cognitive change over time differed between SCD+ and SCD-. People with SCD+ exhibited lower baseline scores and a steeper decline in global cognition, episodic memory, semantic memory, and perceptual speed. People with SCD+ did not differ from SCD- in baseline visuospatial ability or working memory but exhibited increased change over time in those two domains compared to SCD-. DISCUSSION: The observed results reveal that older adults with SCD+ have lower baseline cognition and steeper declines in cognition over time compared to SCD-. Older adults with SCD may be aware of subtle cognitive declines that occur over time in global cognition, episodic memory, semantic memory, perceptual speed, visuospatial ability, and working memory compared to those without 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
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".