MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117250630 · doi:10.1002/alz70857_102973

Associations Between Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy, Cognitive Impairment, and Depressive Symptoms

2025· article· en· W7117250630 on OpenAlexaff
Nikita Nukala, Ryan T. Muir, Andrew E. Beaudin, Cheryl R. McCreary, Myrlene Gee, Krista Nelles, Janina Valencia, Glen C. Jickling, Zahinoor Ismail, Richard Camicioli, Eric E. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepressive symptomsCognitionDepression (economics)Amyloid (mycology)DiseaseCognitive decline

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is linked to cognitive decline and dementia. Depression is associated with worse cognition, and depressive symptoms are among the most frequently reported neuropsychiatric symptoms in CAA. This study examined the individual associations between CAA, cognitive impairment, and depressive symptoms. METHOD: Cross-sectional data from a prospective cohort study of participants with CAA and controls were analyzed. Neuropsychological testing was converted to z-scores using test manual normative data for domains of episodic memory, executive function, and processing speed. The 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale: Short Form (GDS) was used to identify participants with symptoms suggestive of depression, with GDS scores >5 categorized as "possible depression". Multivariable linear or logistic regression was used to determine whether CAA group status and cognitive domain z-scores were associated with possible depression, adjusting for age, sex, and education. Mediation analyses were used to determine the proportion of the effect of CAA on cognition that was mediated by possible depression, controlled for age, sex, and education. RESULT: There were 85 CAA and 83 control participants. The median GDS was 1 (interquartile range 0-3) and 9.5% had possible depression (Table 1). Higher GDS score was associated with lower episodic memory, executive function and processing speed scores (Table 2). In multivariable logistic regression, CAA group status was associated with higher odds of having possible depression (OR 11.92, 95% CI 2.73 to 85.6, p = 0.003). Compared with controls, the CAA group exhibited poorer episodic memory, executive function, and mean processing speed performance (Table 1). However, the effect of CAA on cognition was mostly not mediated by possible depression: episodic memory, 5% (95% CI 0 to 18%, p = 0.06); executive function, 7% (95% CI 0 to 17%, p = 0.06); and processing speed, 2% (95% CI -5% to 10%, p = 0.58). CONCLUSION: Participants with CAA exhibited higher depressive symptoms and worse cognitive performance than controls. Patients with CAA should be screened and treated for depression. However, treating depression is unlikely to substantially improve cognitive function in CAA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ResearchFrench-language works237,207