MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409785696 · doi:10.1093/brain/awaf156

Neuropsychiatric symptoms and progression to pathologically confirmed Alzheimer’s disease

2025· article· en· W4409785696 on OpenAlexafffund
Sergio Fernandez Sharif, Dylan X. Guan, Tamara S. Bodnar, Jeffrey T. Joseph, Henrik Zetterberg, Eric E. Smith, Zahinoor Ismail

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute on AgingHORIZON EUROPE Framework ProgrammeVetenskapsrådetNational Institutes of HealthAlberta InnovatesEuropean CommissionNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsDementiaHazard ratioAlzheimer's diseaseOdds ratioDiseaseMedicineDementia with Lewy bodiesPsychologyConfidence intervalCognitionPsychiatryInternal medicineGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whether or not neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) in advance of dementia are associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and/or other neurodegenerative dementias remains to be determined. The mild behavioural impairment (MBI) construct selects persons with NPS that are later-life emergent and persistent to identify a high-risk group for cognitive decline and incident dementia. Here, in older adults without dementia at baseline, we examined whether post-mortem AD and other neurodegenerative pathologies were associated with MBI in the 5 years before death. National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center study autopsy participants (n = 1016, 82.6 years of age, 48.7% female, 60% normal cognition) were included in the analyses. Using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Questionnaire, MBI+ status was operationalized as NPS persistence at more than two-thirds of pre-dementia study visits; otherwise, status was non-MBI NPS. The presence of AD, Lewy body disease (LBD) and transactive response DNA-binding protein 43 neuropathological changes was determined using published guidelines. Adjusted multinomial logistic regressions modelled pathology-NPS status associations. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards regressions modelled hazard for AD dementia at each NPS status level, including interaction terms with cognitive status and each co-pathology. AD+ individuals (51.4%) were 88.4% more likely to be MBI+ ∼5 years prior than AD- individuals [odds ratio: 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29-2.75, P < 0.01]; however, the likelihood of having non-MBI NPS was not different (odds ratio: 1.22, CI: 0.90-1.66, P = 0.20). No significant associations were seen for LBD pathology, even among AD+ participants. There were no significant differences in the levels of LBD or transactive response DNA-binding protein 43 in those with MBI in comparison to no MBI. Among MBI progressors to dementia (n = 106), 33.0% were solely AD+, 18.9% were mixed AD+ and LBD+, and 11.3% had all three pathologies. For all those with MBI (including dementia non-progressors), of persons with LBD, 83.4% were comorbid with AD. In the survival analysis, MBI+ individuals had a 2.03-fold greater progression rate to AD dementia than those without NPS (CI: 1.60-2.57, P < 0.01). The progression rate was higher in mild cognitive impairment , but the effect of MBI on progression was greater in normal cognition (hazard ratio: 3.05, CI: 1.37-6.80, P < 0.01) versus mild cognitive impairment (hazard ratio: 1.93, CI: 1.51-2.47, P < 0.01). Limbic LBD appeared also to moderate the association between MBI and incident AD (limbic LBD+ hazard ratio: 4.64, CI: 2.05-10.50, P < 0.001; limbic LBD- hazard ratio: 1.87, CI: 1.46-2.40, P < 0.001). Antecedent MBI was strongly associated with AD pathology but not with other neurodegenerative dementias. Inclusion of MBI in research and clinical frameworks for dementia might aid in identification of early stages of neurodegenerative disease, which might be helpful for selecting patients for treatment with AD-modifying drugs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207