Characterizing biomarker features of cognitively normal individuals with ventriculomegaly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The clinical significance of ventriculomegaly in cognitively normal elderly individuals remains unclear. Methods We selected cognitively normal individuals (n = 425) from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database and calculated Evans index (EI) based on the ratio of the frontal horn and skull diameter. We defined ventriculomegaly as EI ≥ 0.30, and the participants were stratified into EI ≥ 0.30 group and EI < 0.30 group. Neuropsychological, imaging, and fluid biomarker profiles between the two groups were then compared using regression models. Results A total of 96 (22.5%) individuals who had ventriculomegaly performed worse on the cognitive tests; showed smaller hippocampal volume but larger caudate, cingulate, and paracentral gyrus volumes; and displayed lower positron emission tomography [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose standardized uptake value ratio but higher amyloid burden represented by higher [18F]florbetapir standardized uptake value ratio and lower cerebrospinal fluid amyloid β 1–42 levels compared to those without ventriculomegaly. Discussion Asymptomatic ventriculomegaly might be an early imaging signature of preclinical Alzheimer's disease and/or normal pressure hydrocephalus.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".