Multiple Early Biomarkers to Predict Cognitive Decline in Dementia-Free Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Baseline olfactory impairment, poor performance on cognitive test, and medial temporal lobe atrophy are considered biomarkers for predicting future cognitive decline in dementia-free older adults. However, the combined effect of these predictors has not been fully investigated. Methods A group of 110 participants without dementia were continuously recruited into this study, and underwent olfactory, cognitive tests and MRI scanning at baseline and 5-year follow-up. Olfactory function was assessed using the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT). Participants were divided into the cognitive decliners and non-decliners. Results Among 87 participants who completed the 5-year follow-up, cognitive decline was present in 32 cases and 55 remained stable. Compared with non-decliners, cognitive decliners presented lower scores on both the UPSIT and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and smaller hippocampal volume at baseline (all P < .001). The logistic regression analysis revealed that lower scores on UPSIT and MoCA, and smaller hippocampal volume were strongly associated with subsequent cognitive decline, respectively (all P < .001). For the prediction of cognitive decline, lower score on UPSIT performed the sensitivity of 63.6% and specificity of 81.2%, lower score on MoCA with the sensitivity of 74.5% and specificity of 65.6%, smaller hippocampal volume with the sensitivity of 70.9% and specificity of 78.1%, respectively. Combining three predictors resulted in the sensitivity of 83.6% and specificity of 93.7%. Conclusions The combination of olfactory test, cognitive test with structural MRI may enhance the predictive ability for future cognitive decline for dementia-free older adults.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".