MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7117302169 · doi:10.1002/alz70857_103861

Examining the Interaction of Alzheimer's Disease and TDP‐43 Neuropathology, and Clinical Diagnosis on Neuropsychiatric Symptoms Burden

2025· article· en· W7117302169 on OpenAlexaff
Adrienne Lloyd Atayde, Neda Rashidi‐Ranjbar, Marc A. Khoury, Francis A Fernandes, Luis R Fornazzari, Nathan W. Churchill, Simon Graham, Tom A. Schweizer, David G. Munoz, Corinne E. Fischer

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuropathologyDiseaseClinical diagnosisMedical diagnosisPsychiatric diagnosisClinical diseaseClinical research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) are prevalent in individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD), impacting disease progression and patient quality of life. AD pathology (amyloid and tau) and related TDP-43 neuropathology may contribute to NPS. The National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) database was used to explore the relationship between NPS and AD, TDP-43 neuropathology and clinical diagnosis. METHOD: A total of 1391 participants from the NACC database were included in the analysis, with data available on NPS (NPI-Q domains), clinical diagnosis (normal cognition, impaired-not-MCI, MCI, and dementia) and neuropathology. Logistic and linear regression models assessed associations between NPS presence or absence, severity and interactions involving clinical diagnosis and AD and TDP-43 neuropathology, including their co-occurrence. Age, sex, education, cognitive scores, and APOE e4 status were adjusted for in all models. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed to quantify the effects. RESULT: The regression models for several NPS domains were statistically significant with clinical diagnosis being the most consistent across domains (Table 1). The clinical diagnosis and neuropathology were significantly associated with apathy (OR = 2.80, 95% CI [2.13, 3.66], p < .001; OR = 1.74, 95% CI [1.09, 2.80], p = .021, respectively) and delusions (OR = 2.71, 95% CI [1.44, 5.09], p = .002; OR = 3.12, 95% CI [1.14, 8.54], p = .026, respectively). Interaction effects were also observed for apathy (OR = 0.88, 95% CI [0.77, 1.00], p = .049) and delusions (OR = 0.75, 95% CI [0.58, 0.98], p = .038). Clinical diagnosis also influenced NPS severity in nighttime behaviors (β = 1.14, 95% CI [0.02, 0.26], p = .018) and apathy (β = 0.16, 95% CI [0.01, 0.32], p = .039). Age, sex, education, cognitive scores, and APOE e4 status had domain-specific effects. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight the role of clinical diagnosis on NPS across domains, with AD and TDP-43 neuropathology and demographic factors exerting domain-specific effects, most notably in delusions and apathy. Interaction effects between neuropathology and clinical diagnosis were only seen in apathy, suggesting that pathology and clinical diagnosis may have independent effects on NPS. Future research is warranted to examine these effects longitudinally.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→