Longitudinal association of depressive symptoms with cognition and neuroimaging biomarkers in cognitively unimpaired older adults, mild cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to longitudinally examine the relationship between depression and cognitive function and investigate the mediating effects of imaging indicators in this relationship. 2,251 subjects with longitudinal assessment of geriatric depression scale, Mini-Mental State Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDRSB), Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale11, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale13 and imaging of 3DT1, diffusion tensor imaging, fluid-attenuated inversion recovery, arterial spin labeling, fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography, 18F-AV45-PET, and 18F-AV1451-PET were included from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database. The multivariate mixed-effects models were employed to analyze the correlation between geriatric depression scale scores, cognitive function, and imaging indicators. The sgmediation software package was utilized to analyze the mediating effects of imaging indicators. The geriatric depression scale was negatively correlated with Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and positively correlated with CDRSB, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale11, and Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale13 when the subjects were not grouped. The geriatric depression scale was negatively correlated with Montreal Cognitive Assessment and positively correlated with Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scal13 in groups with baseline diagnosis of early mild cognitive impairment and late mild cognitive impairment. Furthermore, depression was associated with regional imaging indicators, while cognitive function was linked to broad imaging indicators. Some of these indicators were related to both depression and cognitive function, playing a mediating role in their relationship. Depression was related to cognitive function, especially in subjects with mild cognitive impairment. Some imaging indicators may represent the underlying basis for the association between depression and cognitive function.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".