MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1489802292 · doi:10.3233/jad-2012-112210

Hippocampal Shape Analysis in Alzheimer's Disease and Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration Subtypes

2012· article· en· W1489802292 on OpenAlexaff
Olof Lindberg, Mark Walterfang, Jeffrey CL Looi, Nikolai Malykhin, Per Östberg, Bram B. Zandbelt, Martin Styner, Beatriz Paniagua, Dennis Velakoulis, Eva Örndahl, Lars‐Olof Wahlund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Alzheimer s Disease · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringSwedish Brain Power
KeywordsFrontotemporal lobar degenerationFrontotemporal dementiaHippocampal formationNeuroscienceDiseaseAlzheimer's diseaseHippocampal sclerosisSemantic dementiaMedicinePathologyDementiaPsychologyTemporal lobeEpilepsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hippocampal pathology is central to Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other forms of dementia such as frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). Autopsy studies have shown that certain hippocampal subfields are more vulnerable than others to AD and FTLD pathology, in particular the subiculum and cornu ammonis 1 (CA1). We conducted shape analysis of hippocampi segmented from structural T1 MRI images on clinically diagnosed dementia patients and controls. The subjects included 19 AD and 35 FTLD patients [13 frontotemporal dementia (FTD), 13 semantic dementia (SD), and 9 progressive nonfluent aphasia (PNFA)] and 21 controls. Compared to controls, SD displayed severe atrophy of the whole left hippocampus. PNFA and FTD also displayed atrophy on the left side, restricted to the hippocampal head in FTD. Finally, AD displayed most atrophy in left hippocampal body with relative sparing of the hippocampal head. Consistent with neuropathological studies, most atrophic deformation was found in CA1 and subiculum areas in FTLD and AD.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations105
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Alzheimer s DiseaseSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207