Metric Distances between Hippocampal Shapes Indicate Different Rates of Change over Time in Nondemented and Demented Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we use longitudinal morphometry (shape and size) measures of hippocampus in subjects with mild dementia of Alzheimer type (DAT) and nondemented controls in logistic discrimination. The morphometric measures we use are volume and metric distance measures at baseline and follow-up (two years apart from baseline). Morphometric differences with respect to a template hippocampus were measured by the metric distance obtained from the large deformation diffeomorphic metric mapping (LDDMM) algorithm. LDDMM assigns metric distances on the space of anatomical images, thereby allowing for the direct comparison and quantization of morphometric changes. We also apply principal component analysis (PCA) on volume and metric distance measures to obtain principal components that capture some salient aspect of morphometry. We construct classifiers based on logistic regression to distinguish diseased and healthy hippocampi (hence potentially diagnose the mild form of DAT). We consider logistic classifiers based on volume and metric distance change over time (from baseline to follow-up), on the raw volumes and metric distances, and on principal components from various types of PCA analysis. We provide a detailed comparison of the performance of these classifiers and guidelines for their practical use. Moreover, combining the information conveyed by volume and metric distance measures by PCA can provide a better biomarker for detection of dementia compared to volume, metric distance, or both.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".