Sex-Specific Heterogeneity of Mild Cognitive Impairment Identified Based on Multi-Modal Data Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a prodromal phase of Alzheimer's disease (AD), is heterogeneous with different rates and risks of progression to AD. There are significant gender disparities in the susceptibility, prognosis, and outcomes in patients with MCI, with female being disproportionately negatively impacted. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify sex-specific heterogeneity of MCI using multi-modality data and examine the differences in the respective MCI subtypes with different prognostic outcomes or different risks for MCI to AD conversion. METHODS: A total of 325 MCI subjects (146 women, 179 men) and 30 relevant features were considered. Mixed-data clustering was applied to women and men separately to discover gender-specific MCI subtypes. Gender differences were compared in the respective subtypes of MCI by examining their MCI to AD disease prognosis, descriptive statistics, and conversion rates. RESULTS: We identified three MCI subtypes: poor-, good-, and best-prognosis for women and for men, separately. The subtype-wise comparison (for example, poor-prognosis subtype in women versus poor-prognosis subtype in men) showed significantly different means for brain volumetric, cognitive test-related, also for the proportion of comorbidities. Also, there were substantial gender differences in the proportions of participants who reverted to normal function, remained stable, or converted to AD. CONCLUSION: Analyzing sex-specific heterogeneity of MCI offers the opportunity to advance the understanding of the pathophysiology of both MCI and AD, allows stratification of risk in clinical trials of interventions, and suggests gender-based early intervention with targeted treatment for patients at risk of developing AD.
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 | 0.013 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".