Cognitive and behavioral abnormalities in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease, mild cognitive impairment, and subjective memory complaints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, we investigated the ability of commonly used neuropsychological tests to detect cognitive and functional decline across the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) continuum. Moreover, as preclinical AD is a key area of investigation, we focused on the ability of neuropsychological tests to distinguish the early stages of the disease, such as individuals with Subjective Memory Complaints (SMC). This study included 595 participants from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) dataset who were cognitively normal (CN), SMC, mild cognitive impairment (MCI; early or late stage), or AD. Our cognitive measures included the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT), the Everyday Cognition Questionnaire (ECog), the Functional Abilities Questionnaire (FAQ), the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment scale (MoCA), and the Trail Making test (TMT-B). Overall, our results indicated that the ADAS-13, RAVLT (learning), FAQ, ECog, and MoCA were all predictive of the AD progression continuum. However, TMT-B and the RAVLT (immediate and forgetting) were not significant predictors of the AD continuum. Indeed, contrary to our expectations ECog self-report (partner and patient) were the two strongest predictors in the model to detect the progression from CN to AD. Accordingly, we suggest using the ECog (both versions), RAVLT (learning), ADAS-13, and the MoCA to screen all stages of the AD continuum. In conclusion, we infer that these tests could help clinicians effectively detect the early stages of the disease (e.g., SMC) and distinguish the different stages of 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".