Comparison between self‐ and informant‐rated versions of the Mild behavioral impairment checklist in patients with mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Mild behavioral impairment (MBI) describes de novo emergent and persistent neuropsychiatric symptoms in older individuals. MBI is common in individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), but self‐endorsed symptoms may not align with reports from informants. In this study, we explore the consistency between self‐ and informant‐rated versions of the Mild behavioral impairment checklist (MBI‐C), which is used to assess MBI. Method We included 68 individuals with MCI (MMSE 26.59±2.55) who underwent neurological, extensive neuropsychological examination and brain MRI within the Czech Brain Aging Study and had no history of prior psychiatric disorder. Both participants and their close informants completed The Czech version of the MBI‐C (MBI‐C self and MBI‐C informant, respectively). The consistency and differences between the MBI‐C self and informant total and domain scores (i.e. motivation, affect, impulse dyscontrol, social inappropriateness and psychotic symptoms), and the presence of MBI based on a cut‐off of ≥7, were examined using Wilcoxon signed‐rank test, the binomial test and Spearman´s rank correlation. Further, we explored the association between the informant‐self score difference with the MMSE as a measure of global cognition. Result There was no difference between MBI‐C self and informant total score (both median ratings were 5.0). Among the domain scores, we observed a difference between self and informant ratings in the impulse dyscontrol (Z = ‐2.97, p = 0.003), but not in any other score. Disagreements on the presence of MBI were observed in 19 participants (28%), but both patients and informants were equally likely to disagree on the MBI presence vs. absence. We observed weak to modest correlations between MBI‐C self and informant total and domain scores (rS = 0.34‐0.53, ps<0.01). The informant‐self score difference in MBI‐C impulse dyscontrol was negatively associated with the MMSE (rS = ‐0.39, p = 0.001). Conclusion Patients with MCI and their informants were not consistent regarding the presence of MBI, but among those who disagreed, neither informants nor patients were more likely to report MBI. The informants reported more severe impulse dyscontrol symptoms compared to the patients with MCI themselves and this difference was negatively associated with lower MMSE. The observed inconsistencies provide implications for clinical and research settings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".