Associations of Frailty with Neuropsychiatric Symptoms of Alzheimer’s Disease: A Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Frailty is a vulnerability state increasing the risk of many adverse health outcomes, but little is known about the effects of frailty on neuropsychiatric health. Objective: To explore the associations between frailty and the risk of neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPSs) in Alzheimer's disease (AD), especially in its different clinical stages. Methods: We included 2,155 individuals assessed using modified frailty index-11 (mFI-11), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) and Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q) in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). The relationships between frailty and NPSs were explored with logistic regression models and Cox proportional hazard regression models. Causal mediation analyses were conducted to explore the mediation factors between frailty and NPSs. Results: Among mild cognitive impairment (MCI) participants, frailty was cross-sectionally associated with an increased risk of apathy, and longitudinally associated with increased risk of depression and apathy. Among AD participants, frailty was cross-sectionally associated with increased risk of depression and anxiety, and longitudinally associated with an increased risk of apathy. Among participants with cognitive progression, frailty was associated with increased risk of depression and apathy. In MCI participants, the influence of frailty on NPSs was partially mediated by hippocampus volume, whole brain volume, and monocytes, with mediating proportions ranging from 8.40% to 9.29%. Conclusions: Frailty was associated with NPSs such as depression, anxiety, and apathy among MCI, AD, and cognitive progression participants. Atrophy of the hippocampus and whole brain, as well as peripheral immunity may be involved in the potential mechanisms underlying the above associations.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".