MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4387161066 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3381469/v1

Irregular word reading as a marker of cognitive and semantic decline in Alzheimer’s disease rather than an estimate of premorbid intellectual abilities.

2023· preprint· en· W4387161066 on OpenAlexafffund
Anna Marier, Mahsa Dadar, Florence Bouhali, Maxime Montembeault

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationBioClinicaU.S. Department of DefenseMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeF. Hoffmann-La RocheUniversity of Southern CaliforniaBristol-Myers SquibbEli Lilly and CompanyBiogenAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsBoston Naming TestSemantic dementiaPsychologyDementiaNeuropsychologyCognitionReading (process)Alzheimer's diseaseAudiologySemantic memoryCognitive declineCognitive psychologyNeuroimagingDiseaseMedicinePathologyNeuroscienceLinguisticsFrontotemporal dementia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Irregular word reading has been used to estimate premorbid intelligence in Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. However, reading models highlight the core influence of semantic abilities on irregular word reading, which shows early decline in AD. The general aim of this study is to determine whether irregular word reading is a valid estimate of premorbid intelligence, or a marker of cognitive and semantic decline in AD. Method: 681 healthy controls (HC), 104 subjective cognitive decline, 290 early and 589 late mild cognitive impairment (EMCI, LMCI) and 348 AD participants from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative were included. Irregular word reading was assessed with the American National Adult Reading Test (AmNART). Multiple linear regressions were conducted predicting AmNART score using diagnostic category, general cognitive impairment and semantic tests. A generalized logistic mixed-effects model predicted correct reading using extracted psycholinguistic characteristics of each AmNART words. Deformation-based morphometry was used to assess the relationship between AmNART scores and voxel-wise brain volumes, as well as with the volume of a region of interest placed in the left anterior temporal lobe (ATL). Results: EMCI, LMCI and AD patients made significantly more errors in reading irregular words compared to HC, and AD patients made more errors than all other groups. Across the AD continuum, as well as within each diagnostic group, irregular word reading was significantly correlated to measures of general cognitive impairment / dementia severity. Neuropsychological tests of lexicosemantics were moderately correlated to irregular word reading whilst executive functioning and episodic memory were respectively weakly and not correlated. Age of acquisition, a primarily semantic variable, had a strong effect on irregular word reading accuracy whilst none of the phonological variables significantly contributed. Neuroimaging analyses pointed to bilateral hippocampal and left ATL volume loss as the main contributors to decreased irregular word reading performances. Conclusions: Irregular word reading performances decline throughout the AD continuum, and therefore, premorbid intelligence estimates based on the AmNART should not be considered accurate in MCI or AD. Results are consistent with the theory of irregular word reading impairments as an indicator of disease severity and semantic decline.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→