Consistent inter-protocol differences in resting-state functional connectomes between normal aging and mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Resting-state functional connectivity is a promising biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease. However, previous resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging studies in Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) have shown limited reproducibility as they have had small sample sizes and substantial variation in study protocol. We sought to identify functional brain networks and connections that could consistently discriminate normal aging from MCI despite variations in scanner manufacturer, imaging protocol, and diagnostic procedure. We therefore pooled four independent datasets, including 112 healthy controls and 143 patients with MCI, systematically testing multiple brain connections for consistent differences. The largest effects associated with MCI involved the ventromedial and dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, striatum, and middle temporal lobe. Compared with controls, patients with MCI exhibited significantly decreased connectivity within the frontal lobe, between frontal and temporal areas, and between regions of the cortico-striatal-thalamic loop. Despite the heterogeneity of methods among the four datasets, we identified robust MCI-related connectivity changes with small to medium effect sizes and sample size estimates recommending a minimum of 150 to 400 total subjects to achieve adequate statistical power. If our findings can be replicated and associated with other established biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease (e.g. amyloid and tau quantification), then these functional connections may be promising candidate biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease.
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".