White matter hyperintensities are associated with disproportionate progressive hippocampal atrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study investigates relationships between white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology markers, and brain and hippocampal volume loss. Subjects included 198 controls, 345 mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 154 AD subjects with serial volumetric 1.5‐T MRI. CSF Aβ42 and total tau were measured (n = 353). Brain and hippocampal loss were quantified from serial MRI using the boundary shift integral (BSI). Multiple linear regression models assessed the relationships between WMHs and hippocampal and brain atrophy rates. Models were refitted adjusting for (a) concurrent brain/hippocampal atrophy rates and (b) CSF Aβ42 and tau in subjects with CSF data. WMH burden was positively associated with hippocampal atrophy rate in controls (P = 0.002) and MCI subjects (P = 0.03), and with brain atrophy rate in controls (P = 0.03). The associations with hippocampal atrophy rate remained following adjustment for concurrent brain atrophy rate in controls and MCIs, and for CSF biomarkers in controls (P = 0.007). These novel results suggest that vascular damage alongside AD pathology is associated with disproportionately greater hippocampal atrophy in nondemented older adults. © 2016 The Authors Hippocampus Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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) | 0.002 | 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".