Predicting cognitive change using functional, structural, and neuropsychological predictors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To effectively address Alzheimer's disease, it is crucial to understand its earliest manifestations, underlying mechanisms and early markers of progression. Recent findings of very early brain activation anomalies highlight their potential for early disease characterization and predicting future cognitive decline. Our objective was to evaluate the value of brain activation-both individually and in combination with structural and neuropsychological measures-for predicting cognitive change. The study included 105 individuals from the Consortium for the Early Identification of Alzheimer's Disease-Quebec cohort who exhibited subjective cognitive decline or mild cognitive impairment. Cognitive decline was assessed by calculating the slope of Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores using regression models across successive assessments, and individuals were characterized as either decliners or stable based on clinically reliable change. We evaluated cognitive decline predictions using unimodal models for each class of predictors and multimodal models that combined these predictors. Functional activation emerged as a strong predictor of cognitive change (R²=52.5%), with 87.6% accuracy and 98.7% specificity, performing comparably to structural and neuropsychological measures. Although the unimodal functional model exhibited high specificity, indicating that functional abnormalities frequently predict future decline, it had low sensitivity (60%), meaning that the absence of abnormalities does not rule out future decline. Multimodal models provided greater explanatory power than unimodal models and greater sensitivity than the functional model. These findings highlight the potential role of early brain activation anomalies in the early detection of future cognitive changes, offering valuable insights for clinicians and researchers in assessing cognitive decline risk and refining clinical trial criteria.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".