MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2002444054 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2009.04.327

P2‐018: Cognitive correlations of stroke, white matter disease and brain atrophy after stroke: Preliminary validation of NINDS‐VCI harmonization criteria

2009· article· en· W2002444054 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sandra E. Black, Kie Honjo, Fu‐Qiang Gao, Glenn T. Stebbins, Nancy J. Lobaugh, Christopher J.M. Scott, Xiangyue Zhou, Simon J. Graham, Mireille N. Rizkalla, Elizabeth Geary, Anoop Ganda, Donald T. Stuss, David L. Nyenhuis

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroke (engine)HyperintensityCognitionLeukoaraiosisBrain sizeNeuropsychologyFluid-attenuated inversion recoveryWhite matterMedicineAtrophyPsychologyCardiologyNeuroimagingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vascular Cognitive Impairment (VCI) is very common, but relationships between focal stroke, white matter hyperintensities(WMH), brain atrophy, and cognition are poorly understood. We investigated this using neuropsychological and MRI acquisition protocols recommended by the recent VCI harmonization criteria. (Hachinski,2006). Twenty participants, 6-18 months post-infarct were scanned at 3-Tesla (3D-T1, PD/T2 and FLAIR sequences). Brain tissue segmentation, and regional parcellation, separate WMH analysis (Levy,2008) and stroke lesion tracing were performed. The stroke mask was flipped to the contralateral hemisphere to estimate tissue compartment loss. Volumes were divided by total intracranial capacity to correct for head size. Total and domain z scores were computed for the VCI 60 and 30 minute protocols, testing executive, language, visuospatial and memory. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment and 5 minute battery scores served as screening batteries. Demographics were summarized by the BARONA score (weighted for age, education, SES, ethnicity and sex), which was forced into linear multiple regressions, followed by normalized volumetric measures, (eg brain parenchymal fraction(BPF), WMH and stroke volumes) to predict cognitive performance. Means for 20 subjects (13 women) were: age=65.9; YOE=12.5; MMSE=27; infarct volume=14.9 cm3(14 left-sided); WMH volume=11.7 cm3. BARONA only contributed significantly (R2=0.3,p<0.05) in a linear regression model predicting executive function. BPF improved the models significantly over BARONA alone for the 60 and 30 minute (both R2 change=0.3,p<0.01), and for the memory scores (R2 change=0.4,p<0.05) in multiple regression models, but not for the screening batteries. WMH and infarct volumes did not contribute, except for left dorsolateral frontal WMH volume which added significantly to the variance with BARONA, explaining the executive domain tasks (R2 change=0.3,p<0.01). A method was developed to combine brain tissue volumetrics and lesion tracing to test validity of VCI harmonization protocols in exploring brain-behaviour relationships post-stroke. After accounting for demographic factors, global brain volume best predicted overall cognitive scores in the longer batteries, while the left dorsolateral frontal WMH volume was associated with executive deficits. The preliminary analysis indicates that the recommended batteries correlate with relevant brain measures in a VCI population and as the sample accrues, more specific relationships (eg stroke volume, regional tissue volumes) are being investigated with ongoing support of NIH.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases→French-language works237,207→