MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2533456335 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2016.06.1509

P2‐139: Central Auditory Processing and Imaging Biomarkers of Alzheimer's Dementia

2016· article· en· W2533456335 on OpenAlexaff
Miranda Tuwaig, Mélissa Savard, Benoı̂t Jutras, Pierre Bellec, John C.S. Breitner

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaAudiologyPsychologyNeuroscienceMedicineAuditory cortexDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To find interventions that may prevent Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia, one needs markers that can track the progression of the disease in its pre-symptomatic stages. Central Auditory Processing (CAP), i.e., the cognitive interpretation of auditory stimuli, is impaired in dementia and MCI, and has been shown in individuals at risk to predict later development of AD dementia (Gates, 2011). Recently, CAP deficits have also been shown to identify responders to donepezil treatment (Ouchi, 2015). Previously, we reported a relationship of CAP to age and genetic risk. We now report studies on the relationship between CAP and imaging markers of pre-symptomatic AD. Over 200 participants in the PREVENT-AD cohort of asymptomatic persons with a parental history of AD completed the Synthetic Sentence Identification with Ipsilateral Competing Message (SSI-ICM) task, a measure of speech comprehension with background noise. We explored whole brain cortical thickness in 148 of these subjects using CIVET 1.12 (Lerch, 2005). SurfStat was used to correct for multiple comparisons using Random Field Theory with p <0.05. We extracted temporal gyrus functional connectivity with regions of interest selected a priori using NIAK (Bellec, 2011). After controlling for age, cortical thickness analyses revealed association of SSI-ICM performance with thickness of rostral mid frontal cortex (rMFC) and the pars orbitalis (PO). In subjects who had a successful tone test (n= 43), we found decreased resting state connectivity between the temporal gyri (TG) and dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dMPFC) in persons with reduced performance on the SSI-ICM (age-corrected partial correlations r= 0.345 for left and r= 0.313 for right, p <0.05 for both). We also found a correlation between decreased connectivity of the left TG and posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), and lower SSI-ICM scores (r= 0.328, p <0.05). Tests of central auditory processing appear to correlate with the thickness of several cortical structures, and with resting state connectivity between areas implicated in auditory scene analysis and speech processing. These areas are commonly affected by AD pathology, suggesting that CAP dysfunction may serve as an indicator of AD progression in pre-symptomatic disease. Analysis for whole brain cortical thickness shows positive correlations, after correction for age, between SSI-ICM scores and cortical thickness of the rostral mid frontal cortex and pars orbitalis (both indicated in blue). Random Field Theory was used to correct for multiple comparisons (at p< 0.05). Data are shown for the analysis of 148 participants. SSI-ICM scores correlate with connectivity between the left temporal gyrus and dorsomedial prefrontal cortex. Data are shown for 43 participants who passed a hearing screening. Adjusting for age, r= 0.345 and p= 0.025. SSI-ICM scores correlate with connectivity between the right temporal gyrus and dorsomedial prefrontal cortex. Data are shown for 43 participants who passed a hearing screening. Adjusting for age, r= 0.313 and p= 0.044. SSI-ICM scores correlate with connectivity between the left temporal gyrus and posterior cingulate cortex. Data are shown for 43 participants who passed a hearing screening. Adjusting for age, r= 0.328 and p= 0.034.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

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)0.0070.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.279 · 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.

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207