Neurobiological correlates of Mild Behavioral Impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Although individuals with Mild Behavioral Impairment (MBI) show an increased rate of developing dementia, it remains uncertain whether MBI should be considered a risk factor or an actual early sign of neurocognitive disease. Objectives This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to explore the association between MBI and neurobiological correlates of dementia. Methods The study protocol followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024589059). Five databases and gray literature were systematically searched from inception to January 31, 2025 to identify studies that explored the relationship between MBI and brain imaging findings or neurodegenerative and neuroinflammatory fluid biomarker levels. When studies employed comparable methodologies, a random-effects meta-analysis was performed to summarize the results; conversely, a qualitative synthesis was conducted. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess the study quality. Results Of the 834 records, 27 studies were included. Most studies were cross-sectional and examined the presence of structural or functional abnormalities through brain imaging in individuals with MBI. Six studies, 4 of which were longitudinal, focused on MBI and cerebrospinal fluid or plasma biomarkers of neurodegeneration and neuroinflammation. Due to the high methodological heterogeneity across studies, five random-effects meta-analyses were conducted, each including two studies. These analyses reported a positive, cross-sectional correlation between MBI burden and brain deposition of amyloid-beta (Aβ) or tau. Conversely, MBI was not significantly associated with either plasma phosphorylated-tau181 levels or Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) brain atrophy markers. Nevertheless, based on the qualitative synthesis of the 27 included studies, MBI was frequently linked to Alzheimer’s disease (AD) abnormalities – both in biomarkers and brain imaging studies. Conclusions Across studies, MBI appears to be linked to specific neurobiological markers of AD, including Aβ and tau brain deposition, as well as alterations in the mesolimbic pathway and neurodegenerative and neuroinflammatory fluid biomarker levels. Although emerging evidence supports MBI as a potential early clinical sign of AD, heterogeneity across studies precludes definitive conclusions regarding its precise role in the onset and progression of the disease.
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 | 0.019 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".