MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405220554 · doi:10.1101/2024.12.08.24318690

The Combination of Neuropsychiatric Symptoms and Blood-Based Biomarkers Enhances Early Detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment

2024· preprint· en· W4405220554 on OpenAlexaff
Yi Jin Leow, Zahinoor Ismail, Seyed Ehsan Saffari, Gurveen Kaur Sandhu, Pricilia Tanoto, Faith Phemie Hui En Lee, Smriti Ghildiyal, Shan Yao Liew, Adnan Azam Mohammed, Ashwati Vipin, Chao Dang, Nagaendran Kandiah

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteOntario Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersLee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological UniversityNational Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilNanyang Technological University
KeywordsCognitive impairmentCognitionMedicineInternal medicinePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Combing behavioral assessments with blood-based biomarkers (BBM) may improve detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) linked to early-stage neurodegenerative disease. Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) often precede or accompany cognitive decline and provide observable behavioral signals, while BBM reflect underlying neuropathological changes. We investigated if integrating biological (plasma biomarkers) and behavioral (NPS) measures improves differentiation of MCI from cognitively normal (CN) individuals in a multi-ethnic Southeast Asian cohort— an underrepresented population in dementia research. Methods This cross-sectional analysis included 678 community-dwelling adults (mean age 59.2±11.0, 60.5% female) from the Biomarkers and Cognition Study, Singapore (BIOCIS), comprising participants recruited from the community, at Dementia Research Centre (Singapore) from February 2022 to March 2024. Participants underwent behavioral assessments using the Mild Behavioral Impairment Checklist (MBI-C) and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales (DASS). Plasma biomarkers measured were amyloid-beta (Aβ40, Aβ42), phosphorylated tau (p-tau181), neurofilament light (NfL), and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP). Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses evaluated the discriminative power of NPS, BBM, and their combination for identifying MCI risk. Results MBI-C total scores and subdomains (Mood, Interest, Control) and plasma biomarkers (Aβ40, NfL, GFAP) were significantly elevated in MCI compared to CN participants. Multivariate analysis showed elevated plasma GFAP (OR=3.64, 95% CI:1.96–6.75, p<0.001) and higher MBI-C Mood scores (OR=2.61, 95% CI:1.54–4.44, p<0.001) as the variables most associated with MCI. The combined model integrating NPS and BBM achieved a higher discriminative ability (AUC = 0.786) for MCI than models using NPS (AUC = 0.593) or BBM (AUC = 0.697) alone. The integrated model yielded 64.7% sensitivity and 84.9% specificity for distinguishing MCI from CN, outperforming single-domain approaches. Conclusions Integrating biological and behavioral markers improves identification of individuals with early cognitive impairment. Notably, GFAP-driven neuroinflammation and mood disturbances emerged as key features of prodromal dementia, highlighting astrocytic activation and affective changes as promising biomarkers and early intervention targets. This dual-domain, multimodal framework offers translational potential for earlier detection, risk stratification, and timely intervention for Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→