ArticleJournal of neurology2025
Data-driven subtypes of subjective cognitive decline: neuropsychological profiles, Alzheimer's disease biomarkers, and clinical trajectories.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesSubjective Cognitive Decline (SCD) is a heterogeneous condition recognized as the earliest manifestation of Alzheimer's disease (AD). We hypothesized that the heterogeneity of SCD may be synthesized in distinct subtypes.
methodsWe analyzed data from the AD Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database. For all participants, demographic variables, cognitive measures, APOE genotype, CSF biomarkers, brain MRI, and FDG-PET data were available. Participants underwent follow-up visits every 6 or 12 months.
results542 cognitively normal (CN), 346 SCD, and 423 early mild cognitive impairment (E-MCI) individuals were included. A data-driven approach based on cognitive measures identified three SCD clusters (k1, k2, k3) that performed differently in verbal memory (k2 outperformed all the groups and k3 showed the poorest performance, p < 0.001) and in executive function (k1 had the lowest scores, p = 0.006). Regarding CSF biomarkers, k2 exhibited lower p-tau (20.6 ± 9.2 vs. 24.2 ± 13.6, p = 0.03) and k3 had higher Aβ
interpretationWe proposed a three-subgroup system classification for SCD, reflecting different cognitive profiles and longitudinal trajectories. Classifying individuals with SCD may enhance diagnostic pathways and inform personalized interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41032131What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.