Brain size and the compensation of Alzheimer's disease symptoms: A longitudinal cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Greater intracranial volume (ICV) has been associated with less severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) symptoms at a given level of cerebral pathology. In this study we examine whether ICV modulates the association between clinical disease progression on the one hand and brain atrophy or the apolipoprotein E genotype on the other. METHODS: Six hundred seventy-four subjects were studied from the AD Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Subjects included 204 controls, 144 patients with AD dementia, and 326 with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI). Longitudinal analyses were conducted applying generalized estimating equations to examine the influence of ICV on clinical deterioration and atrophy progression. Follow-up data were available for up to 60 months after the baseline visit (mean 31.42 months, SD 13.12 months). RESULTS: ICV was not directly associated with clinical worsening or atrophy progression. However, ICV attenuated the impact of atrophy and the apolipoprotein E ε4 allele on clinical disease progression in aMCI. CONCLUSION: Greater ICV, that is, premorbid brain size, seems to protect against clinical deterioration in the face of AD-related brain atrophy in aMCI. The results support the theory of a compensatory role of brain reserve in contrast to a neuroprotective role. The protective effects of morphologic reserve seem to be limited to early clinical AD; once a certain threshold of neurodegenerative burden is passed, a larger premorbid brain no longer offers an advantage in this context.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".