Basal forebrain atrophy correlates with amyloid β burden in Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The brains of patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease (AD) have three classical pathological hallmarks: amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques, tau tangles, and neurodegeneration, including that of cholinergic neurons of the basal forebrain. However the relationship between Aβ burden and basal forebrain degeneration has not been extensively studied. To investigate this association, basal forebrain volumes were determined from magnetic resonance images of controls, subjects with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) and AD patients enrolled in the longitudinal Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) and Australian Imaging, Biomarkers and Lifestyle (AIBL) studies. In the AIBL cohort, these volumes were correlated within groups to neocortical gray matter retention of Pittsburgh compound B (PiB) from positron emission tomography images as a measure of Aβ load. The basal forebrain volumes of AD and aMCI subjects were significantly reduced compared to those of control subjects. Anterior basal forebrain volume was significantly correlated to neocortical PiB retention in AD subjects and aMCI subjects with high Aβ burden, whereas posterior basal forebrain volume was significantly correlated to neocortical PiB retention in control subjects with high Aβ burden. Therefore this study provides new evidence for a correlation between neocortical Aβ accumulation and basal forebrain degeneration. In addition, cluster analysis showed that subjects with a whole basal forebrain volume below a determined cut-off value had a 7 times higher risk of having a worse diagnosis within ~18 months.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".