A data‐driven examination of apathy and depressive symptoms in dementia with independent replication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Apathy is one of the most common neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Research that helps define the apathy phenotype is urgently needed, particularly for clinical and biomarker studies. We used latent class analysis (LCA) with two independent cohorts to understand how apathy and depression symptoms co‐occur statistically. We further explored the relationship between latent class membership, demographics, and the presence of other NPS. The LCA identified a four‐class solution (no symptoms, apathy, depression, and combined apathy/depression), reproducible over both cohorts, providing robust support for an apathy syndrome distinct from depression and confirming that an apathy/depression syndrome exists, supported by the model fit test with the four‐class solution scores evidencing better fitting (Bayesian information criterion adjusted and entropy R2). Using a data‐driven method, we show distinct and statistically meaningful co‐occurrence of apathy and depressive symptoms. There was evidence that these classes have different clinical associations, which may help inform diagnostic categories for research studies and clinical practice. Highlights We found four classes: no symptoms, apathy, depression and apathy/depression. Apathy conferred a higher probability for agitation. Apathy diagnostic criteria should include accompanying neuropsychiatric symptoms.
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 | 0.075 | 0.189 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".