Whither the Hippocampus? FDG-PET Hippocampal Hypometabolism in Alzheimer Disease Revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The hippocampus is a widely recognized area of early change in AD, yet voxelwise analyses of FDG-PET activity differences between AD and CN controls have consistently failed to identify hippocampal hypometabolism. In this article, we propose a high-dimensional PET-specific analysis framework to determine whether important hippocampal metabolic FDG-PET activity differences between patients with AD and CN subjects are embedded in the Jacobian information generated during spatial normalization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Resting FDG-PET data were obtained from 102 CN and 92 participants with AD from the ADNI data base. A PET-study-specific template was constructed using symmetric diffeomorphic registration. Spatially normalized raw FDG maps, Jacobian determinant maps, and modulated maps were generated for all subjects. Statistical parametric mapping and tensor-based morphometry were performed, comparing patients with AD with CN subjects. RESULTS: Whole-brain spatially normalized raw FDG maps demonstrated robust hypometabolism in cingulate gyrus and bilateral parietal areas. No hippocampal differences were present, except on ROI-based analyses with a hippocampal mask. Whole-brain modulated maps demonstrated robust bilateral hippocampal hypometabolism, and some hypometabolism in the posterior cingulate. Tensor-based morphometry demonstrated robust hippocampal differences only. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that hippocampal metabolic differences are embedded in the Jacobian information from the spatial normalization procedure. We introduce a voxelwise PET-specific analysis framework based on the use of a PET-population-specific template, high-dimensional symmetric diffeomorphic normalization, and the use of Jacobian information, which can provide substantially increased statistical power and an order of magnitude decrease in imaging costs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".