MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020139159 · doi:10.1001/archneurol.2011.3029

Comparison of Imaging Biomarkers in the Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative and the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging

2012· article· en· W2020139159 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer L. Whitwell

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Neurology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersNational Cancer InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsCohortPopulationAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeNeuroimagingMedicinePsychologyAlzheimer's diseaseMagnetic resonance imagingInternal medicineDiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether magnetic resonance imaging measurements observed in the Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) convenience sample differ from those observed in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) population-based sample. DESIGN: Comparison of 2 samples. SETTING: Fifty-nine recruiting sites for the ADNI in the United States and Canada and the MCSA, a population-based cohort in Olmsted County, Minnesota. PATIENTS: Cognitively normal subjects and amnestic subjects with mild cognitive impairment were selected from the ADNI convenience cohort and MCSA population-based cohort. A simple random sample of subjects from both cohorts in the same age range was selected, and a second sample applied matching for age, sex, educational level, apolipoprotein E genotype, and Mini-Mental State Examination score. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Baseline hippocampal volumes and annual percentage of decline in hippocampal volume. RESULTS: In the population-based sample, MCSA subjects were older, had less education, performed worse on the Mini-Mental State Examination, and had a family history of Alzheimer disease less often than did ADNI subjects. Baseline hippocampal volumes were larger in ADNI compared with MCSA cognitively normal subjects in the random sample, although no differences were observed after matching. Rates of decline in hippocampal volume were greater in the ADNI compared with the MCSA for cognitively normal subjects and those with amnestic mild cognitive impairment, even after matching. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of decline in hippocampal volume suggest that ADNI subjects have a more aggressive brain pathologic process than MCSA subjects and hence may not be representative of the general population. These findings have implications for treatment trials that use ADNI-like recruitment mechanisms and for studies validating new diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer disease in its various stages.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations70
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of NeurologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207