Longitudinal changes in the brain‐age gap in mild cognitive impairment and their relationships with neuropsychological functions and Alzheimer's disease biomarkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The discrepancy between biological and modeled brain ages-the brain-age gap (BAG)-could indicate potential neuropsychological changes. This study verified if and how longitudinal BAG changes were associated with neuropsychological functions and Alzheimer's disease-related biomarkers in individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). METHODS: One hundred thirty-eight individuals with MCI and 103 healthy controls (HCs) with three rounds of magnetic resonance imaging scanning were selected from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. We applied support vector regression on functional connectivity for modeling the brain age and further calculated the BAG. RESULTS: Longitudinal BAG changes were higher in participants with MCI compared to HCs. Larger BAG fluctuations were correlated with poorer cognitive performance and more severe depressive symptoms in patients with MCI. Neurofilament light chain and phosphorylated tau levels were associated with the longitudinal BAG changes. DISCUSSION: Present findings demonstrated the necessity of incorporating longitudinal BAG in monitoring the neuropsychological status among cognitively vulnerable populations. Highlights: Brain-age gap (BAG) changes are sensitive indicators of cognitive vulnerability in aging.BAG changes were larger in patients with mild cognitive impairment than in the controls.Longitudinal BAG changes were associated with worse cognitive-affective states.The plasma neurofilament light chain and cerebrospinal fluid phosphorylated tau levels were associated with the BAG changes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".