MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406024220 · doi:10.1002/alz.089506

Neuropsychiatric and behavioral markers of dementia risk

2024· review· en· W4406024220 on OpenAlexaff
Zahinoor Ismail

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaDiseaseBiomarkerMedicineCognitive declineCognitionLumbar punctureCognitive impairmentPsychiatryPsychologyInternal medicineCerebrospinal fluid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A critical need exists to find simpler approaches for early detection of Alzheimer disease (AD) and related dementias. These approaches must increase access to preventative interventions and treatments, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological, for people in preclinical and prodromal stages of disease. This need has been amplified by the emergence of disease modifying therapies (DMTs), which require biological confirmation of amyloid-ß positivity. Confirmation methods include positron emission tomography (PET) tracers, lumbar puncture for cerebrospinal fluid analysis, and phlebotomy for blood assays. However, given the expense, invasiveness, and lack of availability to all, these methods are not suitable for larger scale screening or case detection. Finding higher-risk persons, enriched for biomarker positivity, can help with case detection. Digital biomarkers, delivered at scale, may have a role. Conventionally, the at-risk group is identified based on cognitive symptoms. An underappreciated approach to help with detection of AD is to incorporate neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) into screening or assessment. Historically, specificity has been a limitation, with NPS manifesting due to other, non-AD aetiologies. More recently, the construct of Mild Behavioral Impairment (MBI) has been developed to improve specificity for AD detection and prognostication when using NPS. MBI leverages risk associated with later-life emergent and persistent NPS to improve specificity. For example, in persons with Subjective Cognitive Decline or with Mild Cognitive Impairment, stratifying by MBI status selects a subgroup with higher rates of incident cognitive decline and dementia. Even more advantageous has been the utility of MBI to predict MCI and dementia in cognitively unimpaired participants, for whom cognitive symptoms cannot easily be used to detect risk. More recently, evidence has emerged supporting the role of MBI for detection of persons with elevated AD biomarker levels, with greater specificity than NPS not meeting MBI criteria. These findings extend the epidemiological data and highlight MBI as a potential tool for sample enrichment. With MBI validated for digital delivery, there is potential to improve screening and case detection at scale. In this session, we will review the MBI construct, the role of MBI in dementia prognostication, and the most current data linking MBI to amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→