Relationship Between White Matter Hyperintensities, Cortical Thickness, and Cognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: White matter hyperintensities (WMH) are associated with clinically heterogeneous symptoms that cannot be explained by these lesions alone. It is hypothesized that these lesions are associated with distant cortical atrophy and cortical thickness network measures, which can result in an additional cognitive impairment. Here, we investigated the relationships between WMH, cortical thickness, and cognition in subjects with cerebral small vessel disease. METHODS: A total of 426 subjects with cerebral small vessel disease were included, aged between 50 and 85 years, without dementia, and underwent MRI scanning. Cortical thickness analysis was performed, and WMH were manually segmented. Graph theory was applied to examine the relationship between network measures and WMH, and structural covariance matrices were constructed using inter-regional cortical thickness correlations. RESULTS: Higher WMH load was related to lower cortical thickness in frontotemporal regions, whereas in paracentral regions, this was related to higher cortical thickness. Network analyses revealed that measures of network disruption were associated with WMH and cognitive performance. Furthermore, WMH in specific white matter tracts were related to regional-specific cortical thickness and network measures. Cognitive performances were related to cortical thickness in frontotemporal regions and network measures, and not to WMH, while controlling for cortical thickness. CONCLUSIONS: These cross-sectional results suggest that cortical changes (regional-specific damage and network breakdown), mediated (in)directly by WMH (tract-specific damage) and other factors (eg, vascular risk factors), might lead to cognitive decline. These findings have implications in understanding the relationship between WMH, cortical morphology, and the possible attendant cognitive decline and eventually dementia.
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".