MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128581044 · doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2013.1321

White Matter Hyperintensities and Cerebral Amyloidosis

2013· article· en· W2128581044 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Frank A. Provenzano, Jordan Muraskin, Giuseppe Tosto, Atul Narkhede, Ben T. Wasserman, Erica Y. Griffith, Vanessa A. Guzman, Irene B. Meier, Molly E. Zimmerman, Adam M. Brickman, for the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Neurology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of California, Los AngelesServierEisaiNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationUniversity of California, San DiegoPfizerBiogenBioClinicaAlzheimer's AssociationAmorfix Life SciencesF. Hoffmann-La RocheMedpaceAstraZenecaEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbBayer HealthCareMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationSynarc
KeywordsNeuroimagingPittsburgh compound BHyperintensityDementiaPositron emission tomographyMagnetic resonance imagingCardiologyPsychologyAlzheimer's diseaseCognitive declineInternal medicineAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMedicineDiseaseNeuroscienceRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Current hypothetical models emphasize the importance of β-amyloid in Alzheimer disease (AD) pathogenesis, although amyloid alone is not sufficient to account for the dementia syndrome. The impact of small-vessel cerebrovascular disease, visualized as white matter hyperintensities (WMHs) on magnetic resonance imaging scans, may be a key factor that contributes independently to AD presentation. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of WMHs and Pittsburgh Compound B (PIB) positron-emission tomography-derived amyloid positivity on the clinical expression of AD. DESIGN: Baseline PIB-positron-emission tomography values were downloaded from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database. Total WMH volume was derived on accompanying structural magnetic resonance imaging data. We examined whether PIB positivity and total WMHs predicted diagnostic classification of patients with AD (n = 20) and control subjects (n = 21). A second analysis determined whether WMHs discriminated between those with and without the clinical diagnosis of AD among those who were classified as PIB positive (n = 28). A third analysis examined whether WMHs, in addition to PIB status, could be used to predict future risk for AD among subjects with mild cognitive impairment (n = 59). SETTING: The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative public database. PARTICIPANTS: The study involved data from 21 normal control subjects, 59 subjects with mild cognitive impairment, and 20 participants with clinically defined AD from the Alzheimer Disease's Neuroimaging Initiative database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical AD diagnosis and WMH volume. RESULTS: Pittsburgh Compound B positivity and increased total WMH volume independently predicted AD diagnosis. Among PIB-positive subjects, those diagnosed as having AD had greater WMH volume than normal control subjects. Among subjects with mild cognitive impairment, both WMH and PIB status at baseline conferred risk for future diagnosis of AD. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: White matter hyperintensities contribute to the presentation of AD and, in the context of significant amyloid deposition, may provide a second hit necessary for the clinical manifestation of the disease. As risk factors for the development of WMHs are modifiable, these findings suggest intervention and prevention strategies for the clinical syndrome of AD.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations194
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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