SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

The social dimension of apathy: evidence for a distinct domain from 11,243 individuals across health and neurocognitive disorders.

Transl Psychiatry · 2026-04-08

DOI: 10.1038/s41398-026-04023-4PMID: 41951598

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Apathy is a highly prevalent and disabling neuropsychiatric syndrome, but its multi-dimensional structure is a challenge for progress towards better identification and treatment. A crucial unresolved question is whether social disengagement reflects a distinct deficit in social motivation or a by-product of diminished initiative or emotional blunting. Previous studies have been constrained by modest sample sizes and limited use of apathy-specific instruments or phenotypically narrow cohorts. Here, we analysed item-level data from 11,243 individuals recruited across multiple centres, including 1154 neurological patients with Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, frontotemporal dementia, autoimmune encephalitis and small vessel disease, alongside people with depression and healthy adults. Across exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, symptom-level network modelling, and lifespan analyses, social apathy consistently emerged as a coherent and separable dimension. This pattern was preserved across health, psychiatric, and neurocognitive cohorts, from adolescence through late life. Recognising social apathy as an independent domain reframes a central aspect of mental health-the motivation to connect, care, and act for others-and provides a foundation for more precise assessment and for interventions targeting both social and neurobiological mechanisms.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.