Clusters of cognitive performance predict long‐term cognitive impairment in elderly patients with subjective memory complaints and healthy controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients with subjective memory complaints (SMC) may include subgroups with different neuropsychological profiles and risks of cognitive impairment. METHODS: Cluster analysis was performed on two datasets (n: 630 and 734) comprising demographic and neuropsychological data from SMC and healthy controls (HC). Survival analyses were conducted on clusters. Bayesian model averaging assessed the predictive utility of clusters and other biomarkers. RESULTS: : 0.04 and <0.001) and was associated with lower hippocampal volumes and higher tau/amyloid beta 42 ratios in cerebrospinal fluid. The effect of SMC was small and confounded by mood. DISCUSSION: This study provides evidence of the presence of cognitive clusters that hold biological significance and predictive value for cognitive decline in SMC and HC. HIGHLIGHTS: Patients with subjective memory complaints include two cognitive clusters. Assignment to the lower performance cluster increases risk of cognitive impairment. This cluster shows a pattern of biomarkers consistent with incipient Alzheimer's disease pathology. The same cognitive cluster structure is found in healthy controls. The effect of memory complaints on risk of cognitive decline is small and confounded.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".