The relationship between learning slopes and Alzheimer’s Disease biomarkers in cognitively unimpaired participants with and without subjective memory concerns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Learning slopes represent serial acquisition of information during list-learning tasks. Although several calculations for learning slopes exist, the Learning Ratio (LR) has recently demonstrated the highest sensitivity toward changes in cognition and Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers. However, investigation of learning slopes in cognitively unimpaired individuals with subjective memory concerns (SMC) has been limited. The current study examines the association of learning slopes to SMC, and the role of SMC in the relationship between learning slopes and AD biomarkers in cognitively unimpaired individuals. METHOD: Data from 950 cognitively unimpaired participants from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (aged 55 to 89) were used to calculate learning slope metrics. Learning slopes among those with and without SMC were compared with demographic correction, and the relationships of learning slopes with AD biomarkers of bilateral hippocampal volume and β-amyloid pathology were determined. RESULTS: Learning slopes were consistently predictive of hippocampal atrophy and β-amyloid deposition. Results were heightened for LR relative to the other learning slopes. Additionally, interaction analyses revealed different associations between learning slopes and hippocampal volume as a function of SMC status. CONCLUSIONS: Learning slopes appear to be sensitive to SMC and AD biomarkers, with SMC status influencing the relationship in cognitively unimpaired participants. These findings advance our knowledge of SMC, and suggest that LR - in particular - can be an important tool for the detection of AD pathology in both SMC and in AD clinical trials.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".