Longitudinal Progression of Cognitive Decline Correlates with Changes in the Spatial Pattern of Brain <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Evaluating the symptomatic progression of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) caused by Alzheimer disease (AD) is practically accomplished by tracking performance on cognitive tasks, such as the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale's cognitive subscale (ADAS_cog), the Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE), and the Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ). The longitudinal relationships between cognitive decline and metabolic function as assessed using (18)F-FDG PET are needed to address both the cognitive and the biologic progression of disease state in individual subjects. We conducted an exploratory investigation to evaluate longitudinal changes in brain glucose metabolism of individual subjects and their relationship to the subject's changes of cognitive status. METHODS: We describe a method to determine correlations in (18)F-FDG spatial distribution over time. This parameter is termed the regional (18)F-FDG time correlation coefficient (rFTC). By using linear mixed-effects models, we determined the difference in the rFTC decline rate between controls and subjects at high risk of developing AD, such as individuals with MCI or the presence of apolipoprotein E (APOE)-ε4 allele. The association between each subject's rFTC and performance on cognitive tests (ADAS_cog, MMSE, and FAQ) was determined with 2 different correlation methods. All subject data were downloaded from the Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. RESULTS: The rFTC values of controls remained fairly constant over time (-0.003 annual change; 95% confidence interval, -0.010-0.004). In MCI patients, the rFTC declined faster than in controls by an additional annual change of -0.02 (95% confidence interval, -0.030 to -0.010). In MCI patients, the decline in rFTC was associated with cognitive decline (ADAS_cog, P = 0.011; FAQ, P = 0.0016; MMSE, P = 0.004). After a linear effect of time was accounted for, visit-to-visit changes in rFTC correlated with visit-to-visit changes in all 3 cognitive tests. CONCLUSION: Longitudinal changes in rFTC detect subtle metabolic changes in individuals associated with variations in their cognition. This analytic tool may be useful for a patient-based monitoring of cognitive decline.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".