MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2161634930 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2011.05.136

IC‐P‐070: Contrasting default mode abnormalities in Alzheimer's disease revealed by task and passive rest

2011· article· en· W2161634930 on OpenAlexaff
Graeme Schwindt, Simone Chaudhary, David Crane, Anoop Ganda, Rafal Janik, Mario Masellis, Cheryl L. Grady, Bojana Stefanovic, Sandra E. Black

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDefault mode networkPrecuneusPosterior cingulateResting state fMRINeurosciencePsychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence suggests there is dysfunction of the default-modenetwork (DMN) in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Much of this work relies analysis of intrinsic connectivity at rest. Other studies examine task-related deactivation in AD patients, and differences are also attributed to DMN dysfunction. While the connectivity of the DMN is robust, it may not be identically instantiated across different states. Sensitivity to group differences may also depend on the state in which it is defined. To date, no work has compared the nature of DMN differences identified in AD from a passive-rest setting compared to a task-baseline setting. We hypothesized that differences in the nature of thesetwo states would lead to contrasting group differences. We scanned a sample of 20 patients with mild AD and 16 matched controls during a simple block-design task with interleaved fixation baseline, and a subsequent resting state run. Both groups showed excellent task performance. Group Independent Component Analysis decomposed task and resting fMRI data into components. The DMN was identified from rest as comprising posterior cingulate/precuneus, lateral parietal, medial prefrontal and medial temporal regions. The DMN was identified from task-data including the same set of regions, showing highest co-activation during baseline fixation blocks. Cross-correlation confirmed spatial similarity between these components (r = 0.85). Dual-regression wasused to compare groups in strength of passive-DMN and task-DMN separately. There was a dissociation in the group differences found in the two DMN states. In the passive-DMN patients showed reduced co-activation of the left hippocampus (p < 0.05, FWE corrected). In contrast the task-DMN showed significantly reduced posterior cingulate/precuneus co-activation in patients. We identified two DMN components from passive rest and task-runs. While both included the same major regions, there were contrasts in their group differences. Examining disruptions of the DMN in AD may depend on the state being examined. The free nature of passive-rest may increase sensitivity to group differences in the MTL. The preparatory nature of fixation baseline may predispose to posterior midline differences due to continuous attention. Taken together, these findings suggest that a comprehensive picture of DMN disruption in AD requires the analysis of multiple states.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→