Blood Angiogenesis Markers and Cognition in Older Adults at Risk for Dementia: Marqueurs sanguins de l’angiogenèse et cognition chez les personnes âgées à risque de démence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Changes in angiogenesis have been shown to contribute to cognitive decline and dementia. We aimed to identify angiogenesis blood markers associated with cognitive performance in older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), remitted major depressive disorder (rMDD), or both (rMDD + MCI) who are at risk for dementia. Method: We analyzed data from participants with MCI, rMDD, or rMDD + MCI in the Prevention of Alzheimer's Dementia with Cognitive Remediation plus Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Depression study. Elastic net regression was used to select variables associated with cognitive performance among 19 angiogenesis markers and 6 covariates. Linear regressions were used to determine which of the selected angiogenesis markers were associated with cognitive performance, controlling for the selected covariates. Significant angiogenesis markers were independently analyzed without other angiogenesis markers, controlling for covariates, with subgroup analyses in those with and without rMDD. Results: Angiogenin was the only selected marker associated with cognitive performance ( β = 0.28, P adj = 0.03, f ² = .02) when controlling for other selected markers (endothelial cell-specific molecule 1, e-selectin, interleukin-33 [IL-33], oncostatin M, platelet-derived growth factor-AB, IL-33 receptor, and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-1) and selected covariates (age, education, apolipoprotein E ε4 status, diagnosis, and cardiovascular risk factors). When independently analyzed, angiogenin remained positively associated with cognitive performance ( β = 0.21, P = 0.01, f ² =.02), controlling for the covariates. In subgroup analyses, angiogenin was also associated with cognition in rMDD and rMDD + MCI participants ( β =0.50, SE = 0.14, P < 0.001, f ² = 0.08) and in MCI-only participants ( β = 0.20, SE = 0.09 , P = 0.02, f ² = 0.02). Conclusion: The association of angiogenin with cognitive performance highlights a potentially novel biological pathway that could influence cognition in older adults at risk for dementia. Angiogenin may protect against cognitive decline, opening new avenues for innovative preventive, or therapeutic interventions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".