Amyloid Pathology Modulates the Associations of Neuropsychiatric Symptoms with Cognitive Impairments and Neurodegeneration in Non-Demented Elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The associations between neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPSs) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) have been well-studied, yet gaps remain. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the associations of four subsyndromes (hyperactivity, psychosis, affective symptoms, and apathy) of NPSs with cognition, neurodegeneration, and AD pathologies. METHODS: Totally 1,040 non-demented elderly (48.07% males) from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) were included. We assessed the relationships between NPSs and AD neuropathologies, cognition, neurodegeneration, and clinical correlates in cross-sectional and longitudinal via multiple linear regression, linear mixed effects, and Cox proportional hazard models. Causal mediation analyses were conducted to explore the mediation effects of AD pathologies on cognition and neurodegeneration. RESULTS: We found that individuals with hyperactivity, psychosis, affective symptoms, or apathy displayed a poorer cognitive status, a lower CSF amyloid-β (Aβ) level and a higher risk of clinical conversion (p < 0.05). Hyperactivity and affective symptoms were associated with increasing cerebral Aβ deposition (p < 0.05). Except psychosis, the other three subsyndromes accompanied with faster atrophy of hippocampal volume (p < 0.05). Specific NPSs were predominantly associated with different cognitive domains decline through an 8-year follow-up (p < 0.05). Moreover, the relationships between NPSs and cognitive decline, neurodegeneration might be associated with Aβ, the mediation percentage varied from 6.05% to 17.51% (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: NPSs could be strongly associated with AD. The influences of NPSs on cognitive impairments, neurodegeneration might be partially associated with Aβ.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".