Practical cut‐offs for visual rating scales of medial temporal, frontal and posterior atrophy in <scp>A</scp>lzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Atrophy in the medial temporal lobe, frontal lobe and posterior cortex can be measured with visual rating scales such as the medial temporal atrophy (MTA), global cortical atrophy - frontal subscale (GCA-F) and posterior atrophy (PA) scales, respectively. However, practical cut-offs are urgently needed, especially now that different presentations of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are included in the revised diagnostic criteria. AIMS: The aim of this study was to generate a list of practical cut-offs for the MTA, GCA-F and PA scales, for both diagnosis of AD and determining prognosis in mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and to evaluate the influence of key demographic and clinical factors on these cut-offs. METHODS: AddNeuroMed and ADNI cohorts were combined giving a total of 1147 participants (322 patients with AD, 480 patients with MCI and 345 control subjects). The MTA, GCA-F and PA scales were applied and a broad range of cut-offs was evaluated. RESULTS: The MTA scale showed better diagnostic and predictive performances than the GCA-F and PA scales. Age, apolipoprotein E (ApoE) ε4 status and age at disease onset influenced all three scales. For the age ranges 45-64, 65-74, 75-84 and 85-94 years, the following cut-offs should be used. MTA: ≥1.5, ≥1.5, ≥2 and ≥2.5; GCA-F, ≥1, ≥1, ≥1 and ≥1; and PA, ≥1, ≥1, ≥1 and ≥1, respectively, with an adjustment for early-onset ApoE ε4 noncarrier AD patients (MTA: ≥2, ≥2, ≥3 and ≥3; and GCA-F: ≥1, ≥1, ≥2 and ≥2, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: If successfully validated in clinical settings, the list of practical cut-offs proposed here might be useful in clinical practice. Their use might also (i) promote research on atrophy subtypes, (ii) increase the understanding of different presentations of AD, (iii) improve diagnosis and prognosis and (iv) aid population selection and enrichment for clinical trials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".