Comparing neuropsychological, typical, and ADNI criteria for the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment in Vietnam-era veterans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: Neuropsychological criteria for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) more accurately predict progression to Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and are more strongly associated with AD biomarkers and neuroimaging profiles than ADNI criteria. However, research to date has been conducted in relatively healthy samples with few comorbidities. Given that history of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are risk factors for AD and common in Veterans, we compared neuropsychological, typical (Petersen/Winblad), and ADNI criteria for MCI in Vietnam-era Veterans with histories of TBI or PTSD. Method: 267 Veterans (mean age = 69.8) from the DOD-ADNI study were evaluated for MCI using neuropsychological, typical, and ADNI criteria. Linear regressions adjusting for age and education assessed associations between MCI status and AD biomarker levels (cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] p-tau181, t-tau, and Aβ42) by diagnostic criteria. Logistic regressions adjusting for age and education assessed the effects of TBI severity and PTSD symptom severity simultaneously on MCI classification by each criteria. Results: Agreement between criteria was poor. Neuropsychological criteria identified more Veterans with MCI than typical or ADNI criteria, and were associated with higher CSF p-tau181 and t-tau. Typical and ADNI criteria were not associated with CSF biomarkers. PTSD symptom severity predicted MCI diagnosis by neuropsychological and ADNI criteria. History of moderate/severe TBI predicted MCI by typical and ADNI criteria. Conclusions: MCI diagnosis using sensitive neuropsychological criteria is more strongly associated with AD biomarkers than conventional diagnostic methods. MCI diagnostics in Veterans would benefit from incorporation of comprehensive neuropsychological methods and consideration of the impact of PTSD.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".