The Difference in Cognitive Profiles Between Patients With Alzheimer Dementia With and Without Psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychosis in Alzheimer disease (AD) is a major burden for patients and their family. Identifying the characteristics of delusions and hallucinations in the AD population is key to understanding the interconnection between the psychiatric and cognitive symptoms in neurocognitive disorders. The aim of this study is to compare the cognitive profiles of AD patients with and without psychosis. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review to explore the relationship between psychotic symptoms and cognitive performances in patients with AD. We used MEDLINE, Embase, and PsychINFO literature databases between January 2015 and January 2023. This rapid review was guided by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. RESULTS: We identified 2909 records from the initial searches. After reviewing the titles, abstracts, and full texts, we selected 8 cross-sectional and 5 cohort studies for the qualitative analysis. Among them, 6 studies were included in the final quantitative analysis. Most studies suggested a correlation between general cognitive decline and the risk of presenting psychotic symptoms. Three studies found an association between hallucinations and deficits in the visuocognitive domains (visuospatial, visuoperceptual, and visuoconstructive skills). Two studies found a relationship between psychotic symptoms and executive dysfunction. Two studies also found a correlation between psychotic symptoms and language. Our results are in line with previous data in the literature, especially regarding the outcome of psychosis on executive function and visuocognitive abilities. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be an association between cognitive deficits and psychotic symptoms in AD, but the direction of causality is still unclear, and further studies using longitudinal designs would give more insight into the pathophysiological process of psychosis in AD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".