MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1168384483 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2015.06.1886

White matter hyperintensity burden in elderly cohort studies: The Sunnybrook Dementia Study, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, and Three‐City Study

2015· article· en· W1168384483 on OpenAlexafffund
Joel Ramirez, Alicia A. McNeely, Christopher J.M. Scott, Mario Masellis, Sandra E. Black

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreHeart and Stroke FoundationCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersAlzheimer SocietyCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSunnybrook Research Institute
KeywordsDementiaHyperintensityNeuroimagingAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMedicineDiseaseGeneralizability theoryAlzheimer's diseaseCohortConfoundingPsychologyPsychiatryInternal medicineMagnetic resonance imagingDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the recent acknowledgement of the complex mixed pathologies that contribute to the clinical expression of dementia, various cohort studies have aimed to examine Alzheimer's disease and cerebrovascular disease as comorbid pathologies, with neuroimaging playing a central role in these studies. Using white matter hyperintensities (WMH) as a biomarker of cerebrovascular disease, we compared WMH burden between the Sunnybrook Dementia Study, the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI-1), the Three-City Study, and various other studies around the world. Based on our findings, it was evident that ADNI-1 had minimal WMH burden relative to other large studies that examine aging and dementia. This low WMH burden in ADNI-1 may be considered as both an advantage, representing a relatively "pure" sample with little confounding vasculopathy, and a disadvantage, as it limits generalizability to "real-world" patient populations with mixed pathologies and to nondemented groups with baseline vascular disease. We explore possible reasons for this distinction, including management of vascular risk factors, gaps in diagnostic criteria, and future directions for clinical research.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations48
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207