Linking the neural signature of response time variability to Alzheimer’s disease pathology and cognitive functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Promising evidence has suggested potential links between mind-wandering and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Yet, older adults with diagnosable neurocognitive disorders show reduced meta-awareness, thus questioning the validity of probe-assessed mind-wandering in older adults. In prior work, we employed response time variability as an objective, albeit indirect, marker of mind-wandering to identify patterns of functional connectivity that predicted mind-wandering. In the current study, we evaluated the association of this connectome-based, mind-wandering model with cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) p-tau/Aβ42 ratio in 289 older adults from the Alzheimer’s Disease NeuroImaging Initiative (ADNI). Moreover, we examined if this model was similarly associated with individual differences in composite measures of global cognition, episodic memory, and executive functioning. Edges from the high response time variability model were significantly associated with CSF p-tau/Aβ ratio. Furthermore, connectivity strength within edges associated with high response time variability was negatively associated with global cognition and episodic memory functioning. This study provides the first empirical support for a link between an objective neuromarker of mind-wandering and AD pathophysiology. Given the observed association between mind-wandering and cognitive functioning in older adults, interventions targeted at reducing mind-wandering, particularly before the onset of AD pathogenesis, may make a significant contribution to the prevention of AD-related cognitive decline.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".