Cognitive lapses reported by daily digital diary, and not by recall‐based questionnaires, predict future MCI in a demographically diverse cohort of community‐dwelling older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Although cognitive lapses are a daily occurrence for many older adults, widely used self‐reports of cognitive function ask respondents to recollect lapses occurring over months or years. We used daily diaries to capture memory and other cognitive difficulties close in time to their occurrence and determined whether daily reports predicted concurrent and/or new cases of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in the next year (i.e., at annual follow‐up). Method In the Einstein Aging Study, daily digital diary indicators of cognitive lapses were assessed each evening over a two‐week period (82% of diaries completed). Conventional recall‐based indicators were the Cognitive Change Index total score and a single item capturing worsening memory (with/without worry), both assessed at each annual visit. Using time‐dependent lagged models with generalized estimating equations (GEE) to correct for within person correlation, we evaluated the association of current cognitive lapses with the probability of being MCI at the current or next annual visit among those diagnosed with MCI after baseline (n = 31 new cases). Result In 307 community‐dwelling participants (Mage = 77.05, SD = 4.95; 67% female, 47% White) who were free of MCI at baseline, higher numbers of daily problems significantly predicted the likelihood of being diagnosed with MCI at the next annual visit (average number of visits = 2.72, range 1‐6 years). For every additional daily cognitive lapse, there was a 5% greater odds of being classified at the next visit (OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01‐1.09). By contrast, conventional indicators did not significantly predict transition to MCI at the next visit (ps = .48 and .62, respectively). However, the single item regarding worsening memory was related to concurrent MCI diagnostic status (p<.01). Sensitivity analyses examining the first 3 days or first 7 days to determine the number of daily reports required to identify new MCI cases indicated that both 3 and 7 days significantly predicted future MCI (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.12‐1.61; OR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.00‐1.14, respectively). Conclusion A brief daily diary assessment of cognitive lapses predicted new cases of MCI. The combination of daily and conventional methods may represent complementary approaches that offer the optimal approach for capturing self‐perceived cognitive deficits associated with current and future MCI.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".