S92 Cognitive function & cerebral white matter tract microstructure in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Rationale</h3> There is evidence to suggest that COPD leads to cognitive impairment in patients both with and without hypoxaemia1; but the pathogenesis remains poorly understood. Also relevant to potential brain pathology in COPD are common vascular comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes and older age. Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) is a novel MRI technique sensitive to subtle changes in white matter due to vascular damage. This is the first study to investigate white matter microstructure and tract pathology in COPD. <h3>Methods</h3> Participants (n=50) completed a full cognitive assessment (including executive function, working memory, episodic memory, processing speed, visuospatial ability) and 3T MRI scan. We compare 25 stable non-exacerbating COPD and 25 age-matched healthy controls. Volumes of grey matter (GMV), white matter (WMV), and white matter lesions (LV), were calculated. DTI data was analysed using tract based spatial statistics (TBSS).2 <h3>Results</h3> There are significant group differences between COPD patients and controls on all cognitive measures except episodic memory (executive function: F=15.39, p<0.001; working memory: F=5.94, p=0.019; episodic memory: F=3.91, p=0.054; processing speed: F=11.64, p=0.001; visuospatial ability: F=10.10, p=0.003). COPD patients did not differ from healthy controls on measures of normalised GMV (t=0.229, p=0.820) or WMV (t=−0.727, p=0.471). Normalised Lesion Volume was significantly greater in patients vs controls (t=−2.27, p=0.029). DTI-TBSS revealed lower fractional anisotropy (FA) and higher mean diffusivity (MD) values throughout the brain in COPD patients vs Control subjects. Group differences in white matter integrity were observed throughout the temporal, frontal, parietal and occipital lobes and amounted to 60% of the total FA skeleton. See Abstract S92 figure 1. <h3>Conclusion</h3> This is the first paper to demonstrate that white matter integrity throughout the brain is significantly compromised in patients with COPD compared to age-matched Controls. This damage to white matter is also demonstrated by the significant group differences in white matter lesion load. No differences between patients and Controls were observed in brain volume, suggesting that group differences may be related to white matter integrity rather than atrophy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".