Cognition and Amyloid-β in Older Veterans: Characterization and Longitudinal Outcomes of Data-Derived Phenotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Within older Veterans, multiple factors may contribute to cognitive difficulties. Beyond Alzheimer's disease (AD), psychiatric (e.g., PTSD) and health comorbidities (e.g., TBI) may also impact cognition. Objective: This study aimed to derive subgroups based on objective cognition, subjective cognitive decline (SCD), and amyloid burden, and then compare subgroups on clinical characteristics, biomarkers, and longitudinal change in functioning and global cognition. Methods: Cluster analysis of neuropsychological measures, SCD, and amyloid PET was conducted on 228 predominately male Vietnam-Era Veterans from the Department of Defense-Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Cluster-derived subgroups were compared on baseline characteristics as well as 1-year changes in everyday functioning and global cognition. Results: The cluster analysis identified 3 groups. Group 1 (n = 128) had average-to-above average cognition with low amyloid burden. Group 2 (n = 72) had the lowest memory and language, highest SCD, and average amyloid burden; they also had the most severe PTSD, pain, and worst sleep quality. Group 3 (n = 28) had the lowest attention/executive functioning, slightly low memory and language, elevated amyloid and the worst AD biomarkers, and the fastest rate of everyday functioning and cognitive decline. CONCLUSIONS: Psychiatric and health factors likely contributed to Group 2's low memory and language performance. Group 3 was most consistent with biological AD, yet attention/executive function was the lowest score. The complexity of older Veterans' co-morbid conditions may interact with AD pathology to show attention/executive dysfunction (rather than memory) as a prominent early symptom. These results could have important implications for the implementation of AD-modifying drugs in older Veterans.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".