Associations between amyloid β and white matter hyperintensities: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This systematic review synthesizes current evidence for associations between cortical amyloid β, visualized on amyloid positron emission tomography imaging, and white matter hyperintensity (WMH) burden on magnetic resonance imaging in healthy elderly adults and individuals with cognitive impairment and dementia. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) systematic review guidelines, we systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and PsycINFO databases from January 2000 to September 2015. RESULTS: Our search returned 492 articles, 34 of which met criteria for inclusion in the final selection. Most studies reported no significant relationships between amyloid β and WMH burden across diagnostic groups. DISCUSSION: Findings of this systematic review suggest that amyloid accumulation and WMH are independent but additive processes. The limited number of independent cohorts, lack of longitudinal data, and exclusion of individuals with mixed dementia limit the generalizability of these findings. Further studies are required to elucidate the putative contributions of vascular processes to neurodegenerative pathology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".