Gray matter atrophy in Parkinson disease with dementia and dementia with Lewy bodies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The nosologic relationship between dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and Parkinson disease with dementia (PDD) is continuously being debated. We conducted a study using voxel-based morphometry (VBM) to explore the pattern of cortical atrophy in DLB and PDD. METHODS: Seventy-four patients and healthy elderly were imaged (healthy elderly n = 20, PDD n = 15, DLB n = 18, and Alzheimer dementia [AD] n = 21).Three dimensional T1-weighted MRI were acquired, and images analyzed using VBM. The following diagnostic criteria were used: criteria proposed by the third report of the DLB Consortium for DLB, the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Diseases Association criteria for AD, and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition criteria for dementia in PDD. RESULTS: Overall dementia severity was similar in the dementia groups. We found more pronounced cortical atrophy in DLB than in PDD in the temporal, parietal, and occipital lobes. Patients with AD had reduced gray matter concentrations in the temporal lobes bilaterally, including the amygdala, compared to PDD. Compared to DLB, the AD group had temporal and frontal lobe atrophy. CONCLUSION: We found that despite a similar severity of dementia, patients with dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) had more cortical atrophy than patients with Parkinson disease with dementia (PDD), indicating different brain substrates underlying dementia in the two syndromes. Together with previous studies reporting subtle clinical and neurobiologic differences between DLB and PDD, our findings support the hypothesis that PDD and DLB are not identical entities, but rather represent two subtypes of a spectrum of Lewy body disease.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".