MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335509707 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2015.06.160

IC‐P‐138: Spatial distribution of white matter hyperintensities in elderly individuals

2015· article· en· W2335509707 on OpenAlexaff
Mahsa Dadar, Tharick A. Pascoal, Sarinporn Manitsirikul, John C.S. Breitner, Pedro Rosa‐Neto, Owen Carmichael, D. Louis Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperintensityDementiaFluid-attenuated inversion recoveryWhite matterCohortCardiologyMedicineCognitive declineInternal medicinePsychologyNeuroimagingPopulationAlzheimer's diseaseAudiologyMagnetic resonance imagingNuclear medicineDiseasePsychiatryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) are lesions in the white matter tissue of the brain seen in normal aging as well as in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), and other dementias. Age is a strong predictor of WMH load (Au et al. 2006) and impacts cognition of otherwise healthy elderly people as well as patients with MCI and dementia (Yoshita et al. 2005). We wished to investigate the spatial distribution of WMHs in the brain. We used two data sets: (1) 120 normal control (NC) adults at risk of AD aged 55 years or older from PREVENT-AD, a longitudinal cohort study of healthy persons with a parental history of AD dementia which had T1-w, T2*, and FLAIR MRI; (2) 80 elderly individuals 70-90 years of age with normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or dementia, with T1-w, double-echo PD/T2-w, and FLAIR scans at enrollment at the University of California, Davis Alzheimer's Disease Center (ADC). The WMHs were segmented using our validated automatic linear regression WMH classifier (Dadar, AAIC 2015, submitted). In short, after preprocessing (image intensity non-uniformity correction and normalization, co-registration of T2*, T2-w, PD and FLAIR images to the T1-w, and non-linear registration to an average ADNI AD template), 17 features are used to segment WMHs. Using the automatic segmentations, average maps of WMH loads were calculated for each population separately. Figure 1 shows 12 transverse slices of the average WMH maps for the entire PREVENT-AD and ADC populations overlapped on the ADNI template.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.268
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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207