Neuropsychiatric symptoms and brain aging in mild cognitive impairment and early dementia: A multicenter study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the clinical importance and significant social burden of neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) in dementia, the underlying neurobiological mechanism remains poorly understood. Recently, neuroimaging-derived brain-age estimation by machine-learning analysis has shown promise as an individual-level biomarker. We investigated the relationship between NPS and brain-age in amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early dementia. METHOD: Clinical data, including neuropsychiatric inventory (NPI), and structural brain MRI of 499 individuals with clinical diagnoses of amnestic MCI (N = 185), early Alzheimer's disease (AD) (N = 258) or dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) (N = 56) were analyzed. We established a brain-age prediction model using 694 brain structural MRI scans of healthy subjects and support vector regression model and applied it to the patients' data. Finally, the brain predicted age difference (brain-PAD: predicted age minus chronological age) were calculated. RESULT: All clinical diagnostic groups showed significantly increased brain-PAD, and the median (IQR) brain-PAD was 4.3 (5.4) years in MCI, 6.3 (6.2) years in AD, and 5.0 (6.5) years in DLB. The NPI scores were subdivided into the following four categories: (i) Agitation and Irritability, (ii) Depression and Apathy, (iii) Delusions and Hallucinations, and (iv) Euphoria and Disinhibition. We found a significantly positive correlation between brain-PAD and the depression/apathy factor (Spearman's rs = 0.156, FDR-corrected p = 0.002), while no significance was shown in the other NPS factors. CONCLUSION: Abnormal brain aging may be involved in depression and apathy symptoms presented in MCI to early dementia stages, and brain-age analysis may be useful as a novel biomarker for assessment or monitoring of NPS.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".