Functional Activity and Connectivity Differences of Five Resting-State Networks in Patients with Alzheimer's Disease or Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to investigate the activity within and the connectivity between resting state networks (RSNs) in healthy subjects and patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and resting-state MRI were performed on patients diagnosed with AD (n=18) or MCI (n=16) and on healthy subjects (n=18) with matching demographic characteristics (age, sex, and education level). Independent component analysis and Granger causality analysis (GCA) were used during image postprocessing. We calculated 'In + Out degree' for each RSN. Then, we investigated the relationships between "In + Out degree" of each brain network and the cognitive behavioural data. RSNs were obtained using the optimal matching method. The core areas of the five RSNs were similar between the AD, MCI, and healthy control groups, but the activity within these five RSNs was significantly lower in the AD and MCI groups than in the healthy control group (P<0.01, false discovery rate corrected). The GCA results showed that the connectivity between the five RSNs, particularly the connectivity from the default mode network (DMN) to the other RSNs, was slightly lower in MCI patients and was significantly lower in AD patients than in healthy subjects. In contrast, increased connectivity was evident between the memory network and the executive control network in the AD and MCI patients. The "In + Out degree" of the DMN negatively correlated with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score in AD patients (R=-0.43, P<0.05). In conclusion, the activity within RSNs and the connectivity between RSNs differed between AD patients, MCI patients, and normal individuals; these results provide an imaging reference for the diagnosis of AD and the measurement of disease progression and reveal insight into the pathogenesis of AD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".