MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4312086784 · doi:10.1002/alz.066871

Validating Frontal Memory‐related Neuromarkers for Mild Cognitive Impairment using Identical Protocols in Two Racial and Culturally Distinct Cohorts

2022· article· en· W4312086784 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yang Jiang, Xiaofeng Zhao, Zhiwei Zheng, Jeremy J Latham, Baoxi Wang, Ziming Liu, Xiaopeng Zhao, Gregory A. Jicha, Juan Li

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionAudiologyPsychologyCognitive testHeadsetRecallMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitive impairmentDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Studies using standardized cognitive assessments across disparate populations are often confounded by sociocultural differences, leading to a lack of comparative standards to assess the degree of Mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Thus, testing in diverse populations is essential in validating biomarkers for MCI and avoiding race and cultural confounders. Applying an identical, cross‐culturally accepted, non‐invasive, electrophysiological protocol, we test the hypothesis that the frontal neuromarkers for MCI are consistent in two samples of older adults in the US and China. Method Using an identical, clinically friendly protocol with a wireless 14‐channel headset (eMotiv), we recorded EEG signals along with accuracy and reaction times during a visual object working memory task in two samples of older adults. The Kentucky sample includes 12 Normal Cognition NC; (Mean age 68); 7 MCI (age 81) while the Beijing sample includes 11 NC (age 64) and 16 MCI (age 65). Each participant also received assessments in NACC UDS 3.0. The 10‐min task asked each subject to remember two visual objects and then determine whether the subsequent object is a Match or Nonmatch to one of the two held in working memory. Result We found that left frontal sites showed significant mean amplitude differences between MCI and NC during target match retrievals. The persons with MCI showed reduced responses to memory targets at the F3 and F7 sites in Kentucky. The MCIs’ reduction patterns were significant in the left frontal F3 but not significant at F7 in Beijing sample. The Beijing participants were on average younger than KY participants, leading to a reduction in quantitative signal change, however, the effect remains robust and parallels those from Kentucky. The current results using a fast and two‐target memory task are consistent with previously reported results using 64‐channels and a longer version of the memory task with single‐target. Conclusion We have validated frontal neuromarkers for MCI risk in two diverse samples. The current finding has significant implications for clinical practice which creates a path for the next step: large‐scale, low‐cost, and culturally‐accepted screening for risk of cognitive decline in individuals, irrespective of their socio‐cultural, geographical, or societal background.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→