Neuroinflammation Exacerbates Irritability and Agitation in Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that microglial activation (MA) plays a key role in the physiopathology and progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Unpublished data suggest that MA is highly associated with the development of neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) in patients with AD. Thus, we aim to investigate here the contribution of each NPS domain to this association across individuals in the AD continuum. METHOD: C]PBR28) at the same visit. Regions were tailored using Desikan-Killiany (DK) atlas. SUVRs were calculated using the cerebellum gray matter as a reference. Linear regression tested the association between biomarkers accounting for age, sex, and cognitive status. RESULT: C]PBR28 in the cingulate, inferior temporal, and precuneus accounting for age, sex, and after false discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons (Figure 1A). This association was independent of Aβ and tau levels (Table 1). When we stratify NPI-Q domains (agitation, irritability, motor disturbance, disinhibition, elation, delusion, hallucinations, nighttime disturbance, depression, anxiety, apathy, and appetite disturbance) severity score, we found that the hyperactivity subdomain (agitation, irritability, motor disturbance, disinhibition, and elation) showed the larger contribution to the results (Figure 1B). Bootstrapping each NPI-Q domain from the NPI-Q total score, linear regression analysis reveals that irritability, nighttime disturbance, and agitation are the main contributors to the association between NPS and MA (Figure 1C). Removing these domains, but no other combination of two or three NPI-Q domains, from the NPI-Q total score, abolishes this association (Figure 1D). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that MA is associated with neuropsychiatric dysfunction in AD. Notably, we found that irritability, nighttime disturbance, and agitation drive the association between NPS and MA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".