MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1964134833 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2014.05.213

IC‐P‐205: DOES THE STRATIFICATION OF AMCI PATIENTS BY THEIR COGNITIVE STATUS HELP IN THEIR OUTCOME PROGNOSIS BASED ON MRI IMAGING?

2014· article· en· W1964134833 on OpenAlexaff
Yuliya Bodryzlova, Olivier Potvin, Simon Duchesne

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineVentriclePathologicalReceiver operating characteristicCognitive impairmentRisk stratificationDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cognitive status of aMCI subjects is correlated to the extent of the underlying pathological process. It therefore constitutes a good starting point for the prognostic of their progression to clinical Alzheimer's disease (AD). We wished to test the hypothesis that the combination of clinically obtainable information on cardiovascular risk factors (CRF) and brain volumetry via MRI in a stratum of aMCI subjects with low cognitive integrity would increase the quality of their prognosis. We conducted this case-control study on 195 aMCI ADNI subjects with baseline MMSE in the [24-27] range, and for which complete baseline CRF and MRI were available. We first created a prognostic model for AD within 36 months based on MRI volumetric results (FreeSurfer) and CRF (blood glucose levels, arterial tension, cholesterol and triglycerides). We then proceeded with a stratification based on cardiovascular risk, calculated by categorizing each CRF (expressed as 0 - normative level, 1 - moderate increase, 2 - considerable increase), summing, and dichotomizing all scores (0-2 for low risk, 3 and higher for high risk). The best-obtained model, with area under ROC curve of 80.1, contained the following variables: hypertension, triglycerides, cholesterol, glucose, right hippocampus, right inferior lateral ventricle, right middle temporal, and parahippocampal left-right difference. Stratification by cardiovascular risk provided two models: (a) low cardiovascular risk and right middle temporal and parahippocampal left-right difference resulted in ROC 72,6%, accuracy 65,8%, sensibility 57,5% and specificity 70,1%, positive likelihood ratio 1,9 and negative likelihood 0,6 at the probability level of 0.6; (b) high cardiovascular riskand right hippocampus and right inferior lateral ventricle resulted in ROC 81,5%, accuracy 71,4%, sensibility 86.0% specificity 44,4%, and positive/negative likelihood ratios of 1.55 and 0.32 respectively at the probability level of 0.5. The results from our models to predict progression in those aMCI with low global cognition using CRF and volumetric data have comparable positive/negative likelihood ratios than those described for MRI alone in the general aMCI population (LR+: 2.6;LR-: 0.46-0.5). Thus, in this dataset, the impact of cardiovascular factors on aMCI progression to AD is considerable, and stratification by cardiovascular status could have clinical sense.

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)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→