Vascular cognitive impairment subtypes:a comparative study with cognitive function and MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the discrepancy between vascular cognitive impairment(VCI) sub-types' patients and cognitive normal(CN) individuals based on cognitive function and brain structural imaging.Methods A case control study was performed.Different VCI subtypes' patients(n = 62) including 34 VCI no dementia(VCI-ND),18 vascular dementia(VD) and 10 mixed dementia(MD) were recruited,as well as 50 CN controls in matching with sex,age and education.Evaluated the cognitive function by Mini-Mental State Ex-amination(MMSE),Cognitive Capacity Screening Examination(CCSE) and Combined Mini-Mental-Cognitive Capacity Examinations(CMC),and investigated the brain structural magnetic resonance imaging(MRI) param-eters including volumetric changes of focus area,lobar atrophy,white matter leukoaraiosis and lacunar infarc-tion by computer-assisted graphical recognition and processing.Results In comparison with CN controls,the cognitive function assessment of various VCI subtypes' patients presented progressive decline(P 0.05,for all),but the difference between VD and MD was not significant(P 0.05).In MRI,the comparison between CN controls and various VCI subtypes' patients manifested on the following traits:1) enlargement of bilateral frontal horn volume and third ventricle volume(P 0.05,for all);2) an increasing grade of frontal cortical atro-phy,temporal cortical atrophy,parietal cortical atrophy and occipital cortical atrophy(P 0.05,for all);3) higher grades on white matter leukoaraiosis and lacunar infarction(P 0.05,for all).Moreover,the brain struc-tural imaging variations amplified in advanced cognitive impairment.MD patients,however,without signifi-cantly increase in grade of lacunar infarction(P 0.05),were characterized by decline of bilateral hippocampal volume and entorhinal cortical volume,as well as atrophy of temporal lobe(P 0.05,for all).Conclusion The changes of brain MRI can partially reflect the pathological changes of different VCI subtypes' patients,but are not sensitive to the degree of cognitive impairment.More study should be performed to investigatewhether the combination of brain MRI and cognitive function assessment can be clinically used to predict VCI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".