FEATURES OF NEUROCOGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS IN PATIENTS WITH MILD COGNITIVE DISORDER OF DIFFERENT ETIOLOGY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Mild cognitive disorder (MCD) is a heterogeneous syndrome that involves problems with memory, speech, and thinking that are inconspicuous and do not affect the patient's independence and daily life. The article considers similarities and differences in the neurocognitive profiles of patients with mild cognitive disorders of various etiologies. Materials and methods. We examined 60 people: 30 subjects aged 50 to 83 years with a mild cognitive disorder of various etiologies and 30 relatively healthy individuals as the control group. All patients underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination of the brain. We used the psychometric method and the following scales: the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA), the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB), the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog), the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR); the results were analyzed using the method of statistical processing. Results. According to the results of neurocognitive testing, no significant differences were found in the total scores (p = 0.6209), in particular, using the MMSE scale in patients with non-anamnestic (nMCD) and anamnestic (aMCD) мild cognitive disorder and мild cognitive disorder (aMCD). However, patients with nMCD showed significantly lower results with subtests: "attention and calculation" (p = 0.0443). According to the MoCA scale, patients with nMCD had a higher score vs. patients with aMCD (p = 0.0457), namely in the "delayed recall" subtests (p = 0.0102). Patients with nMCD had significantly lower results with the "attention and calculation" subtest (p = 0.0468). No significant differences were found between the groups of patients with MCD according to the results of testing with the FAB scale (p = 0.4778). According to some subtests of the ADAS-cog scale, patients with aMCD showed worse results with the "word recall" test (p = 0.0069) and "word recognition" (p = 0.0350). In patients with nMCD, lower scores were observed for the subtests "concentration and distractibility" (p = 0.0468), "number cancellation task" (p = 0.0217), and "passing the labyrinth" (p = 0.0015). Patients with aMCD showed significantly lower cognitive abilities than patients with nMCD. Consequently, patients with aMCD may be significantly at high risk of progression to Alzheimer's disease. Conclusions. After comparing the data of neurocognitive profiles, we established that in patients with anamnestic мild cognitive disorder, the clinical picture presented with a pronounced memory disorder, especially delayed recall, while the patients with non-anamnestic мild cognitive disorder were characterized by regulatory cognitive impairment (attention and calculation, reduced speed of thinking, impaired planning of activities). The MoCA and ADAS-cog scores had better diagnostic accuracy and specificity for the detection and differential diagnosis of mild cognitive disorders than the MMSE scale.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".